Act on Promotion of Information and Communications Network Utilization and Information Protection, Etc. (Defamation)

A

Maximum leather (prosecution, public trial)

November 19, 2015

1. The defendant shall be punished by a fine of 700,000 won;

2. If the defendant does not pay the above fine, the defendant shall be confined in a workhouse for the period converted into one day.

3. An order to pay the amount equivalent to the above fine shall be issued;

4. Of the facts charged in the instant case, each of the facts constituting a violation of the Act on Promotion, etc. of Information and Communications Network Utilization and Information Protection (Defamation) on June 3, 2014, August 19, 2014; August 31, 2014; August 31, 2014; September 5, 2014; and December 1, 2014, shall be acquitted.

Criminal facts

On September 27, 2014, the Defendant posted a statement to the same effect seven times from August 26, 2014 to February 27, 2015, as indicated in the following table, stating that “C is considerably unable to distinguish, and D is only in soil and bating, most of its internal members are in soil and bating,” for the purpose of slandering the victim D, a director of the KCA, who works for approximately 4,000 members.

A person shall be appointed.

However, there was no fact that most of the internal residents were diagnosed as the same physical constitution in the Chanwon operated by the victim.

Nevertheless, the Defendant posted the above comments with intent to defame the victim, thereby divulging public false information through the information and communications network, thereby impairing the honor of the victim.

Summary of Evidence

1. Defendant's legal statement;

1. Statement made to D by the police;

1. Police for the accused and each protocol of examination of the prosecution;

Application of Statutes

1. Article relevant to the facts constituting an offense and the selection of punishment;

Article 70(2) of the Act on Promotion of Information and Communications Network Utilization and Information Protection, Etc.

1. Aggravation for concurrent crimes;

Articles 37 (former part), 38 (1) 2, and 50 of the Criminal Act

1. Invitation of a workhouse;

Articles 70(1) and 69(2) of the Criminal Act

1. Order of provisional payment;

Article 334(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act

The acquittal portion

1. Summary of the facts charged

The Defendant, from June 3, 2014 to December 1, 2014, posted comments on the comments on the following five times as indicated in the list, thereby impairing the honor of the victim by revealing publicly false facts through an information and communications network, with the intention of slandering the victim D, who is the Director of the Korean National Institute, the Director of the Korean National Assembly, as indicated in the list:

A person shall be appointed.

A person shall be appointed.

2. Determination

There is no difference between the crime of defamation and insult in that the protected legal interest of the crime of insult is the so-called external reputation, which is a social evaluation of the human value. However, defamation requires defamation by publicly alleging specific facts that may undermine the people's social evaluation, and is not a specific fact, but a simple abstract judgment or a sacrific sentiment that impairs the social evaluation as an expression of a sacrific sentiment (see Supreme Court Decision 87Do739, May 12, 1987).

In the crime provided for in Article 70(2) of the Act on Promotion of Information and Communications Network Utilization and Information Protection, Etc., "a statement of fact" means a statement of opinion that represents a value judgment or evaluation, which refers to a report or statement of specific past or current facts in time and space, which can be proved by evidence. In distinguishing whether a statement of decision is a fact or an opinion, it shall be determined by considering the overall circumstances, such as the ordinary meaning and usage of the language, possibility of proof, the context in which the given statement was used, and the social circumstances in which the expression was made (see Supreme Court Decision 2008Do8310, Feb. 12, 2009).

On the other hand, each of the above comments cannot be viewed as a "statement of fact" under Article 70 (2) of the Act on Promotion of Information and Communications Network Utilization and Information Protection, Etc., because it constitutes a subjective evaluation or expression of opinion on D or Cwons operated by D, not a verification of authenticity by evidence.

3. Conclusion

Thus, the above facts charged constitute a case that does not constitute a crime, and thus, is acquitted pursuant to the former part of Article 325 of the Criminal Procedure Act.

Judges' branch office counter

1) The written indictment is written “as of September 25, 2014,” but it appears to be written in writing.