(영문) 부산지방법원 2014.5.23. 선고 2013노4103 판결

The main purpose of the crime of this case was to slander the complainant by pointing out the facts of punishment of the complainant and to defame the reputation of the complainant. Thus, even though the crime of violation of the Act on Promotion of Use of Information and Communications Network and Information Protection, etc. (Defamation), the court below found the not guilty of the charge of this case. The court below erred by misapprehending the legal principles on the crime of violation of the Act on Promotion of Use of Information and Communications Network and Information Protection, etc. (Defamation) and

2. Determination

A. Summary of the facts charged

On November 28, 2012, the Defendant sold heavy and audio equipment to the complainant D, who became aware of via the Internet Csite, and the dispute occurred with the complainant on the grounds of the defect of the equipment, etc., and the complainant first posted an article that damages the reputation of the Defendant on the C website bulletin board, and the Defendant filed a complaint against the complainant as a crime of defamation, and the summary order was issued as a crime of violation of the Act on Promotion of Information and Communications Network Utilization and Information Protection (Defamation) against the complainant thereafter, with a view to slandering the complainant:

1. On February 20, 2013, at around 12:04, using the pen name "E" at the bottom of its sales text on the Internet Csite, DC is aware of the fact that "DC was found guilty of defamation by the Daegu District Law, and was punished by a fine. It is still known that DC continues to be her mother and her mother, and continues to be her mother, regardless of her anti-continence." By posting a letter "by the date of a chronic period," it damages D’s reputation by openly pointing out the fact publicly;

2. 2013. 2. 22. 00:21경 위 C 사이트에 고소인이 작성한 "뭐씨와의 블랙 코미디"라는 제목의 글 하단에 'E'이라는 필명을 이용하여 댓글 형식으로, "이제 법원 판결이 났습니다. D씨는 명예훼손 혐의로 유죄 판결로 벌금형에 처해졌으며, ……사기, 이놈저 놈, 개**, *놈 등 차마 입에 담기 어려운 쌍말로 대하고 마치 환불을 거부하는 것처럼 치부하여 사기꾼인양 하여 심대한 상처를 받았습니다. 굼뱅이도 밟아보시지요.."라는 글을 게시함으로써, 공연히 사실을 적시하여 고소인의 명예를 훼손하고,

3. On February 22, 2013, around 01:27, the title “Intermediate Report on D's Cyber Violence of 12/12/13, 12/16, 12/18,” on the bulletin board of the above C site,” and the title “A person himself/herself filed a complaint against the above cyber terrorism, even though he/she was not against his/her own objection, against the above cyber terrorism, he/she was found guilty by the Daegu District Court, thereby impairing the reputation of the complainant by openly pointing out facts.”

B. The judgment of the court below

The court below found the defendant guilty of the violation of the Act on Promotion, etc. of Information and Communications Network Utilization and Information Protection and Information Protection and Communications Network Utilization and Information Protection and Information Protection and Information Protection, etc. (hereinafter referred to as the "Act on Promotion, etc. of Information and Communications Network Utilization and Information Protection and Information Protection and Information Protection and Information Protection and Information Protection and Information Protection and Information Protection and Information Protection and Information Protection and Information Protection and Information Protection and Information Protection and Information Protection and Information Protection and Information Protection and Information Protection and Information Protection, etc.). The court below found the defendant guilty of the violation of the Act on Promotion, etc. of Information and Communications Network Utilization and Information Protection and Information Protection and Information Protection and Information Protection and Information Protection, etc. (hereinafter referred to as the "Act on Promotion, etc. of Information and Communications Network Utilization and Information Protection and Information Protection and Information Protection and Information Protection and Information Protection, etc.") as follows.

C. Judgment of the court below

In the crime of defamation under the Act on Promotion of Information and Communications Network Utilization and Information Protection, Etc., the term "suspect" refers to the perception and intent of a fact that may undermine another person's social assessment. The term "purposes" means that the expression requires an intention or purpose of deception. Whether a person is intended to defame another person should be determined by comparing and balancing the contents and nature of the relevant statement, the scope of the other party to whom the relevant fact was published, and the degree of infringement of reputation that may be damaged or damaged by the expression. Furthermore, inasmuch as the purpose of defamation is inconsistent with the subjective intent of the actor as it is for the sake of public interest, unless there are special circumstances, it should be deemed that the purpose of defamation is denied unless it is related to the publicly notified facts, and the expression "where the alleged facts are related to the public interest," is objectively related to the public interest, and thus, it should be determined that the perpetrator constitutes an expression of public interest, such as the expression of public opinion or public interest of 10 people, and whether it constitutes an objective public interest, such as the expression or public interest of the whole.

Examining the judgment of the court below in light of the above legal principles, the above judgment of the court below is just, and there is no error in the misapprehension of legal principles as to the violation of the Act on Promotion, etc. of Information and Communications Network Utilization and Information Protection, etc. (Defamation).

Meanwhile, even if it is assumed that the Defendant’s act of posting each letter written in the facts charged of this case constitutes defamation as provided in the above Act, in light of the background, contents, and the closure of the posted club site, etc., it is reasonable to deem that such act constitutes a justifiable act that does not go against the social rules, as it can be acceptable in light of social norms and social ethics. Thus, the prosecutor’s assertion does not seem to have any reason.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the prosecutor's appeal is without merit, and it is dismissed in accordance with Article 364 (4) of the Criminal Procedure Act. It is so decided as per Disposition.