The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

Summary of Grounds for Appeal

Although misunderstanding of facts posted the same article as the facts charged on the Internet, the court below erred by misunderstanding the fact that the defendant pronounced guilty, even though the defendant did not know that there was no purpose of defamation, it did not constitute a false fact.

The punishment (fine 5 million won) sentenced by the court below on unreasonable sentencing is too unreasonable.

In order to establish a crime of defamation by a false statement of false facts through an information and communications network under Article 70(2) of the Act on Promotion of Information and Communications Network Utilization and Information Protection, Etc., and defamation by a false statement of false facts under Article 307(2) of the Criminal Act, the fact that the statement is false, and the defendant must be aware that the statement of facts is false in the statement of such facts, and the burden of proof for the criminal intent is the prosecutor.

(2) Article 70(2) of the Act on Promotion of Information and Communications Network Utilization and Information Protection, Etc. provides that “a statement of fact” means a report or statement on the past or current facts, which is sufficiently specific time and space, and where an essential part of the alleged fact is consistent with objective facts, a statement of fact is somewhat different from the truth or somewhat exaggerated in the detailed statement.”

Although it cannot be viewed as a false fact, in determining whether it is a false fact, it is necessary to determine whether it is an important part that is not consistent with objective facts by examining the purport of the whole contents of the alleged fact.

(see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2008Do8310, Feb. 12, 2009). Promotion of the use of information and communications networks.