[1] The meaning of "the purpose of Slandering people" under Article 61 (1) of the Act on Promotion of Information and Communications Network Utilization and Information Protection, Etc. and the method of determining such "the purpose

[2] The case holding that it cannot be concluded that a high school teacher's act of publishing a letter informing a female student who has worked as an assistant principal in a high school that he/she is unreasonable as an expulsion from school for public interest on the Internet bulletin board is for public interest and that there is no purpose of

[1] Article 61(1) of the Act on Promotion of Information and Communications Network Utilization and Information Protection, Etc., Article 309(1) of the Criminal Act / [2] Article 61(1) of the Act on Promotion of Information and Communications Network Utilization and Information

[1] Supreme Court Decision 97Do158 delivered on October 9, 1998 (Gong1998Ha, 2715) Supreme Court Decision 98Do2188 delivered on February 25, 2000 (Gong2000Sang, 885) Supreme Court Decision 2003Do6036 Delivered on December 26, 2003 (Gong2004Sang, 317), Supreme Court Decision 2003Do2137 Delivered on April 29, 2005 (Gong2005Do5068 Delivered on October 14, 2005)

Defendant

Defendant

Attorney Correction decoration

Seoul Central District Court Decision 2003No10432 delivered on August 3, 2004

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

The grounds of appeal are examined (to the extent of supplement in case of supplemental appellate briefs not timely filed).

“Purpose of slandering a person” under Article 61(1)5 of the Act on Promotion of Information and Communications Network Utilization and Information Protection, Etc. is, like the “purpose of slandering a person” under Article 309(1) of the Criminal Act, to the effect that an actor is in conflict with one another in the direction of an actor’s subjective intent. Therefore, if the alleged fact concerns the public interest, it is reasonable to deem that the objective of slandering a person is denied unless there are special circumstances. Here, “where the alleged fact concerns the public interest” refers to the alleged fact concerning the public interest, and such fact should also be expressed for the public interest subjectively for the sake of the public interest. In this case, not only pertains to the interests of the State, society, and other large persons, but also to the interest and interest of a particular social group or its entire members, and whether the alleged fact concerns the public interest or not is merely a public official or a private person (private person) who is a public official or private person, 200, 2009, 209, 97, etc.

The court below found the defendant guilty of violating the Act on Promotion of Information and Communications Network Utilization and Information Protection, etc., on the following grounds: (a) although the defendant, who is the teacher of a female high school, was at around January 10, 2003, posted on the Internet website (name omitted) and posted on the bulletin board of the "Kaum Group of Non-Indicted 1 student lives", a significant part of the article at issue by the defendant attending the Haum Education Report Meeting held at the Kan University branch school in Yan National University, and notified the non-indicted 1's expulsion from the above high school student non-indicted 1 working as an assistant principal, and received his signature from the attending person, the part of the "non-indicted 1" stated in the facts charged cannot be concluded as not having any inevitable relationship with the above purport and the phrase "non-indicted 1" cannot be concluded as not being used to spread the situation where the victim committed a criminal act, and in full view of the contents and nature of the expression at issue and the degree of reputation damaged or damaged by the expression.

However, according to the records, the victim's act of deceiving the son and the shoulder part, etc. of Non-Indicted 2 by hand in the course of guiding the student Non-Indicted 2 was not likely to be misunderstood due to sexual indecent act as an inappropriate behavior. As a result, the expulsion from office against Non-Indicted 1, which is at issue of the victim's behavior, was caused by his expulsion from office. Therefore, the Defendant's posting of the above contents does not have the victim's own face, but it is not publicly known about the specific facts that the victim criticizes the victim. In full view of various circumstances, such as the victim's status, statement and nature of the defendant, the contents and nature of the statement, the method of expression, the motive and time of publication, the nature of the Internet bulletin board, etc., the act of the defendant's posting of this case to the non-Indicted 1, who is at issue of the victim's behavior, and thus, the act of the victim's serving in the Internet website of this case, and it can be concluded that it has no other motive or purpose of public interest.

Ultimately, the court below erred and adversely affected the conclusion of the judgment by misunderstanding the legal principles on "the purpose of slandering a person" under Article 61 (1) of the Act on Promotion of Information and Communications Network Utilization and Information Protection, Etc., or misunderstanding facts against the rules of evidence. The ground of appeal assigning this error is with merit.

Therefore, the guilty part of the judgment of the court below is reversed, and that part of the case is remanded to the court below for a new trial and determination. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

Justices Kim Young-ran (Presiding Justice)