logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
춘천지방법원 강릉지원 2015.09.24 2015노347
정보통신망이용촉진및정보보호등에관한법률위반(명예훼손)등
Text

The judgment of the court below is reversed.

The defendant is not guilty. The summary of the judgment against the defendant shall be published.

Reasons

1. Summary of grounds for appeal (legal scenarios and unreasonable sentencing)

A. In light of the legal principle, the notice language written by the Defendant, as specified in the facts charged in this case, is not mentioned by the specific business name, and the victim is not specified. Thus, all of the facts charged in this case premised on the victim’s specification is not established. 2) As to the defamation of paragraph (1) of the facts charged in this case, the Defendant written a notice in order to protect the consumer’s rights and interests, and the victim took part in the expression of the risk of defamation. Thus, the public interest in preventing other consumer damage rather than defamation against the victim is the primary purpose of the victim, and thus, the “non-purpose” cannot be acknowledged.

3) As to the insult of the facts charged in the instant case, the Defendant’s act constitutes a justifiable act that does not violate the social norms, in full view of various circumstances, including the details, motive, and purport of the entire text of the posting, etc., even though it was true that the Defendant partially inappropriate expressions among the facts charged in the instant case. Furthermore, even if the facts charged in the instant case were guilty, the lower court’s punishment (two million won of fine) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. The crime of defamation does not necessarily require a person’s name to be explicitly indicated, and thus, if the expression of false facts without a person’s name can be identified by comprehensively determining the contents of the expression in light of the surrounding circumstances, it constitutes defamation against the specific person.

(Supreme Court Decision 82Do1256 delivered on November 9, 1982). B.

However, in full view of the following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court below, the prosecutor submitted it.