The defendant is innocent. The summary of this judgment shall be notified publicly.

1. The summary of the facts charged is as follows: (a) the Defendant: (b) access to C using a mobile phone at his/her home located in Guri-si on September 24, 2017; (c) access to C; and (d) “D” page.

He shall operate H and Carpets in Guri G.

The purpose of this article is to protect the reputation of the victim by putting a notice on the victim's photograph together with his/her photograph.

2. Determination

A. Article 70(1) of the Act on Promotion of the Use of Information and Communications Network Utilization and Information Protection, Etc. requires the intention or purpose of a hazard. The issue of whether a “the purpose of a person’s defamation” is “the purpose of a person’s defamation” ought to be determined by considering all the circumstances regarding the expression itself, including the content and nature of the relevant publicly alleged fact, the scope of the other party to whom the relevant fact was published, and the method of expression, etc., and by comparing and considering the degree of infringement of reputation that may be damaged or damaged by the relevant expression.

In addition, such “purpose of slandering a person” is contrary to the direction of the actor’s subjective intent with respect to the purpose of public interest.

Therefore, unless there are special circumstances, it is reasonable to deem that the objective of slandering a publicly alleged fact is denied in a case where the publicly alleged fact is related to the public interest. It includes not only the public interest of the State, the society, and other general public, but also the interest and interest of a specific social group or the entire members thereof. If the principal motive or purpose of the actor is for the public interest, it is also intended to slander another publicly-interest purpose or motive incidental to the public interest.

It is difficult to view the following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and investigated by the court in light of the aforementioned legal doctrine (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2013Do3517, May 29, 2014). (b) In the case of a case, the following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and investigated by the court