logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 서울서부지방법원 2017.06.22 2017노14
정보통신망이용촉진및정보보호등에관한법률위반(명예훼손)
Text

The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

Reasons

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

(a) The principal work is to prepare false facts and articles in the form of reproduction attached by the victim himself/herself according to the instructions of the company to which he/she belongs;

It is true that most of the articles prepared by the victim are articles prepared in the form of copying.

Defendant’s primary and secondary broadcast remarks are merely a somewhat exaggerated expression of the number of articles written by the victim coverage in fact, and it is deemed that Defendant posted a false fact.

Although the court below did not have determined that the Defendant’s speech was false, the court below erred by misapprehending the legal principles on determining false facts, which affected the conclusion of the judgment.

Since the defendant analyzed the articles prepared by the victim through the best way that he could do, the defendant did not have a perception that his remarks constitute false facts.

However, the court below determined that the defendant's efforts to analyze article had a perception of false facts as a matter of course without sufficient review, and found the defendant guilty of the facts charged. Thus, the court below erred by misapprehending the legal principles as to the burden of proof of false facts or by misapprehending the burden of proof

B. Since the crime of violating Article 70(2) of the Act on Promotion of the Use of Information and Communications Network Utilization and Information Protection, Etc. (hereinafter “Information and Communications Network Act”) requires the purpose of slandering a person, it is necessary to prove that the Defendant had the purpose of slandering, in addition to the intent, in order to establish a crime of violating Article 70(2) of the Information and Communications Network Act.

Since the defendant was unaware of the victim personally, there was no reason to defame the victim.

The defendant shall prepare a type of article attached to a copy through a broadcast for the public interest purpose.

arrow