The method of determining whether there is "the purpose of slandering a person" as prescribed by Article 70 (1) of the Act on Promotion of Information and Communications Network Utilization and Information Protection, Etc., and relation with the public interest.

Article 70(1) of the Act on Promotion of Information and Communications Network Utilization and Information Protection, Etc. (Amended by Act No. 12681, May 28, 2014)

Supreme Court Decision 2008Do8812 Decided May 28, 2009 (Gong2009Ha, 1056) Supreme Court Decision 2009Do12132 Decided November 25, 2010 (Gong2011Sang, 70)

Defendant

Defendant

Law Firm Kim & Lee LLC, Attorneys Kim Jae-soo et al.

Seoul Central District Court Decision 2012No411 Decided February 20, 2013

The judgment of the court below is reversed, and the case is remanded to the Seoul Central District Court Panel Division.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

1. Article 70(1) of the Act on Promotion of Information and Communications Network Utilization and Information Protection, Etc. requires the intention or purpose of a harming a person. The issue of whether there is a "purpose of slandering a person" requires the intention or purpose of a harming a person. In addition, considering the contents and nature of the relevant publicly alleged fact, the scope of the other party to whom the relevant fact was published, and the method of expression itself, the degree of infringement of reputation that may be damaged or damaged by the expression, etc., and at the same time, the determination should be made by comparing and considering the degree of infringement of reputation that may be damaged or damaged by the expression. In addition, the term "purpose of slandering a person" is in conflict with the subjective intention of the actor, as it concerns public interest, barring any special circumstance, if the publicly alleged fact concerns public interest, it is reasonable to deem that the purpose of slandering a person is denied, and it includes not only the interests of the State, society, and other general public, but also the interests and interests of a particular group or its entire members, and if the motive or purpose of the offender is for public interest, it is difficult.

2. According to the evidence duly adopted by the first instance court, if the Defendant applied for a promotion examination for the police officer in 201, and passed the second practical examination with only one victim and one other, and completed the second practical examination on November 25, 201, before the final successful candidate was announced, the Defendant connected the Internet site “Stttttp://www.gogo.go.m.r.,” and “Family Love book” as the title “the applicants for special promotion examination has problems with the applicants for the special promotion examination” on the bulletin board of the “Stch page page with the State Party”. However, in light of the following circumstances revealed by the record, it is difficult to deny that the Defendant’s posting of the instant text was intended to enhance the fairness and transparency of the police officer’s promotion examination, and thus, it is difficult to readily conclude that the Defendant’s motive or objective of the promotion examination or other interests of the State or police officer’s general public, as the motive or objective of the Defendant’s disclosure examination or other interests of the State or police officer’s general public.

A. While the Defendant and the victim are in a competitive relationship with the mitigated promotion examination, the Defendant’s assertion that “the victim was subject to a standby order due to the consideration of the victim,” and emphasizes relatively detailed harm that may be caused when promoting the victim, thereby undermining the honor of the victim. However, this may be deemed to be merely an use of somewhat exaggerated expressions by indicating the fact in detail for the purpose of claiming that the victim failed to meet the requirements for the compulsory service period of the police special forces necessary for applying for the promotion examination.

B. The reason for applying for the promotion examination lies in ensuring the continuity of duties of the police special forces who perform special duties by separately managing the promotion of police officers assigned to the police special forces assigned to the police assigned to the police assigned to the police assigned to the police assigned to the special forces for a certain period. Therefore, if a police officer promoted by the police assigned to the special forces assigned to the police assigned to the military service based on the police assigned to the compulsory service period is promoted based on the career of the special forces assigned to the police assigned to the police assigned to the military, it would go against the purpose of promoting the police officer assigned to the special forces assigned to the police assigned to the police assigned to the police assigned to the police assigned to the military. In the notice of the special forces assigned to the police assigned to the police assigned to the police assigned to the police assigned to the police assigned to the police assigned to the police assigned to the military assigned to the police assigned to the military for a certain period, after the Defendant put

C. Among the Internet sites of “Saber National Police Agency”, the term “the disclosure of major corruption cases” was opened, and a notice was given on the case of misconduct that may cause damage to the reputation of the subject, thereby performing a certain self-determination function within the National Police Agency. This paper, compared to those posted by the Defendant, may be deemed to have relatively weak concerns over defamation.

D. The Defendant, among the Internet sites of “Sberber National Police Agency”, posted this case’s writing on the bulletin board of “flag room with the national hall” in the “flag room with which only a certain person with an ID granted by the National Police Agency can access.” As such, it may be deemed that the scope of the other party to whom the publication of the fact was made does not extend. Furthermore, the Defendant did not specify the name and place of work of the victim as part of the instant text, and did not use insulting expressions, such as defluening the victim.

3. Nevertheless, the court below determined that there was a purpose of slandering a victim solely based on its stated reasoning. The court below erred by misapprehending the legal principles on "the purpose of slandering a person," which is an element of defamation under Article 70(1) of the Act on Promotion of Information and Communications Network Utilization and Information Protection, Etc., which is an element of defamation, thereby adversely affecting

4. Therefore, the lower judgment is reversed, and the case is remanded to the lower court for further proceedings consistent with this Opinion. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

Justices Kim So-young (Presiding Justice)