Defendant

E. He/she shall file a prosecution for the first time, Kim Jong-chul (Trial)

Attorney Shin Jin-han (National Assembly)

A defendant shall be punished by a fine of 500,000 won.

When the defendant fails to pay the above fine, the defendant shall be confined in a workhouse for the period converted by 50,000 won into one day.

In order to order the provisional payment of an amount equivalent to the above fine.

The Defendant is a mother who was engaged in postnatal care in the “△△△” postnatal care center operated by the victim Nonindicted Party in Seoul Special Metropolitan City, Nowon-gu (hereinafter omitted) from December 14, 201 to February 27 of the same month.

No person shall defame another person by divulging facts openly through an information and communications network with intent to defame the person.

피고인은 2011. 12. 26. 16:17경 서울 이하 불상지에서 유명 산모카페인 인터넷 네이버 카페 “ ○○○○○○○” ( 인터넷주소 생략) 인터넷 사이트에 접속하여 닉네임 “ □□□□□”, 아이디 “ ◇◇◇◇◇◇◇”를 사용하여, “ △△△산후조리원측의막장대응”이라는 제목하에 “250만 원이 정당한 요구의 청구인가를 물어보니 막장으로 소리지르고 난리도 아니네요 이러면 제가 겪은 사실 모두 후기에 다 올리겠다 했더니 “해볼테면 해봐라” 오히려 저에게 “손해배상을 청구하겠다”고 합니다.“라는 글을 게시하여 정보통신망을 통하여 공공연하게 사실을 드러내어 △△△산후조리원 및 원장인 피해자 공소외인의 명예를 훼손하였다.

From that time to December 30, 2011, the Defendant posted a letter on the Internet website “○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○”)

1. Partial statement of the defendant;

1. The prosecutor’s statement of the Nonindicted Party

1. Statement of the Nonindicted Party

1. A written petition;

1. Article applicable to criminal facts;

Article 70(1) of the Act on Promotion of Information and Communications Network Utilization and Information Protection

1. Aggravation for concurrent crimes;

Article 37 (former part), Article 38 (1) 2, and Article 50 of the Criminal Act

1. Detention in a workhouse;

Articles 70 and 69(2) of the Criminal Act

1. Order of provisional payment;

Article 334(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act

A. The defendant and defense counsel's assertion

Although it is true that the defendant posted the representation of the facts constituting the crime, it cannot be said that it is for the public interest and is for the purpose of slandering it.

B. Determination

The term "purpose of slandering a person" under Article 70 of the Act on Promotion of Information and Communications Network Utilization and Information Protection, Etc. means requiring the intention or purpose of a harming a person. The issue of whether a person is intended to defame a person shall be determined by 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, and by comparing and considering the degree of infringement of reputation that may be damaged or damaged by the expression (see Supreme Court Decision 2008Do4740, Sept. 25, 2008). Meanwhile, in a case where the publicly alleged fact concerns public interest, unless there are any special circumstances, the purpose of slandering a person shall be denied. However, “where the publicly alleged fact is related to public interest,” the phrase “in a case where the publicly alleged fact” shall be a publicly alleged fact for the public interest, and shall be objectively seen from an objective point of view (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2005Do5068, Oct. 14, 2005).

In light of the following circumstances that can be recognized based on each of the instant evidence, i.e., ① the number of members exceeds 20,000, ② the content of each of the instant notices contains a number of expressions that criticize the victim’s attitude and behavior against the victim’s filing of the complaint beyond the information source for the postnatal care center operated by the victim, ③ the details of each of the instant notices, including the continuous and overlapping posting of notices and comments immediately after the victim refused the Defendant’s refusal of the Defendant’s demand for refund, and the details of specific expressions and methods of expression, etc., even if considering that the victim’s perception of the customer’s complaint should be reduced to a certain extent from the perspective of the victim who provides services for profit-making purposes, such assertion cannot be deemed to have indicated facts primarily with respect to the public interest, and thus, the foregoing assertion is rejected.

[Attachment]

Judges Lee Dong-young