2013 Fixed 80 A. Defamation

(b) Violation of Information and Communications Network Promotion Act;

(Defamation)

1. A;

2. B

Kim Jong-Un (Court of Prosecution) and transmission machines (Court of Public Trial)

Law Firm C (PP for the Defendant)

Attorney D

October 24, 2013

Defendants are not guilty.

1. Summary of the facts charged

A. Defamation;

1) On December 1, 2011, the Defendants conspired to prepare in collusion a printed article stating that the Defendants “E apartment ” is ‘E apartment located in Switzerland-si E apartment with a thickness of the occupants of the apartment,” and distributed it to the above apartment residents, by preparing a printed article stating that “The imprisonment of the first instance court (201-481 case number: 201-481) is suspected of engaging in sexual indecent acts........”

As a result, the Defendants, by pointing out facts, damaged the victim F's reputation.

2) On June 15, 2012, the Defendants conspired to post an incentive stating that the fact in Chuncheon E Apartment was not revoked as the victim F's manager's qualification on the public bulletin board of the above apartment complex, and the head of the management office's qualification was revoked on June 14, 2012, as in the final judgment of the Supreme Court, the Korea Apartment Management Office was sentenced to 2 years of suspension of execution and 80 hours of community service work, as in the final judgment of the Supreme Court, as in the judgment of the Supreme Court, on June 14, 2012, and distributed it to the above apartment occupants by inserting the above incentive.

As a result, the Defendants damaged the honor of the victim by pointing out false facts.

(b) Violation of Act on Promotion of Information and Communications Network Utilization and Information;

around 14:00 on July 5, 2012, the Defendants conspired and put up a false statement stating that the fact was not revoked as the victim F’s manager, but that the H office located in Chuncheon City, in the H office located in G, that was called “E apartment occupants’ thickness,” and that it was called “E apartment occupants’ thickness,” at the H office located in G in Chuncheon City, the Defendants damaged the reputation of the victims by revealing publicly false facts through an information and communications network for the purpose of slandering the victims. In the final judgment of the Supreme Court, on June 14, 2012, our apartment management office was sentenced to 2 years of suspension of execution and 80 hours of community service, and the qualification of the managing office was revoked.”

2. Determination

A. In order to establish a crime of defamation under Article 307(2) of the Criminal Act, the offender must publicly indicate the fact, and the publicly alleged fact should amount to a decrease in the social evaluation of the person, and the offender should have recognized such fact as false. In determining whether the publicly alleged fact is false or not, in cases where the material part of the publicly alleged fact is consistent with objective facts in light of the overall purport of the publicly alleged fact, it cannot be deemed a false fact even if there is a little difference from the truth or somewhat exaggerated expression in the detailed context. In order to establish the crime of defamation by publicly alleging false facts, the person who publicly alleged the fact should have recognized that the publicly alleged fact is false (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2006Do1538, Feb. 25, 2000).

On the other hand, if an act that defames a person by openly pointing out a fact is true and solely for the public interest, it may not be punished pursuant to Article 310 of the Criminal Act. Here, the term "real fact" refers to a fact that is consistent with objective facts in light of the overall purport of its contents, and even if the material part is different from truth or somewhat exaggerated expressions, the term "when it comes to the public interest" refers to the public interest when the alleged facts objectively are objectively seen, and thus, an actor must also indicate such fact for the public interest. It includes not only the public interest of the State, society, and other general public, but also the public interest and interest of a specific social group or its entire members. Whether the alleged facts relate to the public interest should be determined by comparing the expression itself such as the content and nature of the alleged facts, the scope of the counter-party to which the publication of the relevant facts was made, the method of expression itself, etc., with the degree of infringing reputation or damage that may be damaged by such expression (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 200Do1959).

B. The part on defamation of false facts

According to the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court on this part of the facts charged, the victim F was sentenced to a stay of execution for six months at the District Court on June 21, 201, and the victim appealed, but the appeal was dismissed on February 14, 2012. The above judgment became final and conclusive on September 24, 2012. The Governor of Gangwon-do filed a lawsuit seeking cancellation of the above disposition against the victim on September 24, 2012, and the defendant's act of using the same information as the victim's non-public housing manager's non-public housing manager's non-public housing manager's non-public housing management office's non-public housing management office's non-public housing management office's non-public housing management office's non-public housing management office's non-public housing management committee's non-public housing management committee's non-public housing management committee's non-public housing manager's non-public housing management committee's non-public housing manager's non-public housing management committee's non-public housing management.

In light of the above facts and circumstances, it is reasonable to view that the defendants' acts as stated in this part of the facts charged also for the benefit of the whole apartment residents, including the safe and comfortable residential life, etc. of the occupants. As such, this constitutes solely for the public interest, and thus, illegality should be avoided pursuant to Article 310 of the Criminal Act. The evidence submitted by the prosecutor alone is insufficient to recognize this part of the facts charged.

D. If so, the facts charged in this case constitute a case where there is no proof of crime, and thus, the Defendants are acquitted under the latter part of Article 325 of the Criminal Procedure Act.

Judges Cho Jae-ap