The defendant shall be innocent.

1. Facts charged;

가. 정보통신망이용촉진및정보보호등에관한법률위반(명예훼손) 누구든지 정보통신망에 공연히 허위의 사실을 적시하여 타인의 명예를 훼손해서는 아니되는데도, 피고인은, 2013. 1. 24. 16:46경 부산 해운대구 C에 소재한 피고인의 집에서 네이버까페인 D에 '[본문스크랩]사료의 함정 에톡시퀸 사용업체 리스트'라는 제하의 게시글을 올려, 사실은 고소인 회사 E에서 수입하고 있는 F의 'G'라는 사료제품에 에톡시퀸이 사용되지 아니하였음에도 불구하고, 마치 에톡시퀸이 사용되고 있는 것처럼 허위의 사실을 적시하였다.

Accordingly, the defendant has damaged the reputation of the complainant by openly pointing out false facts on the information and communication network with the aim of slandering.

B. The Defendant interfered with business by publicly spreading false facts by publicly inserting a notice stating false facts in the Internet camera D at the temporary location of the above A, in the same manner as the above A, at the same time and place as the above A, thereby interfering with the business affairs of the complainant.

2. Determination

A. “Purpose of slandering a person” under Article 70(2) of the Act on Promotion of Information and Communications Network Utilization and Information Protection, Etc. is required to express an intent or purpose, and whether a person is intended to defame a person is determined by comparing and comparing the contents and nature of the relevant publicly alleged fact, the scope of the counter-party to whom an announcement of fact was made, and the degree of infringement of reputation that may be damaged or damaged by the expression, etc. at the same time taking into account all the circumstances concerning the expression itself, such as the method of expression, etc. In addition, the degree of infringement of reputation that may be damaged or damaged by the expression is contrary to the direction of the actor’s subjective intent. Therefore, in a case where the publicly alleged fact concerns

Supreme Court Decision 201No. 1000 Decided June 1, 2007