1. The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Defendant.

Purport of claim and appeal

1...

1. The first instance court dismissed the claim against the Defendant for property damage (affirmative and passive damage) and consolation money, and accepted the claim against consolation money in entirety.

Since only the defendant appealed, the scope of this court's adjudication is limited to the plaintiff's claim for compensation for consolation money.

2. Facts of recognition;

A. On September 23, 2014, the Defendant, on the Defendant’s Internet Pest bulletin board, posted a statement to the effect that there was no crime that the Plaintiff provided a pharmaceutical company with economic benefits to doctors and violated the Pharmaceutical Affairs Act, and that there was no intention in relation to the case under investigation, and that “C, even in D, the intent to receive money was not money of the nature of rebates. On the other hand, the Defendant asserted that only the person A (Plaintiff) who is the planning person and the accuser of the instant case, was the rebates. The party who was urged by the Defendant under the Defendant’s Internet Pest bulletin board of the Defendant, sent a statement to the effect that “the Plaintiff provided a pharmaceutical company with economic benefits to doctors,” and that there was no criminal intent in relation to the case under investigation.”

B. The Defendant was convicted of a fine of KRW 2,00,000 on September 21, 2016 due to a violation of the Act on Promotion, etc. of Information and Communications Network Utilization and Communications Network Utilization and Information Protection (Defamation) (Act No. 1832) and a violation of the Act on Promotion, etc. of Information and Communications Network Utilization and Communications Network Utilization and Information Protection (Act No. 1385, Sep. 21, 2016) by revealing facts to the public through an information and communications network for the purpose of slandering

Although the Defendant appealed as Seoul Eastern District Court 2016No1549, the Defendant was sentenced to the dismissal of appeal on May 26, 2017, and the Defendant appealed to the Supreme Court 2017Do9391 at the present Supreme Court.

[Reasons for Recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 8, and Eul evidence No. 1.