logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 서울북부지방법원 2020.10.16 2020노847
정보통신망이용촉진및정보보호등에관한법률위반(명예훼손)
Text

The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

Reasons

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. As stated in the facts charged, the Defendant did not intend to defame the victim or to defame the victim because the message sent to the E-school (hereinafter “the instant message”) via the Messenger from the school room (hereinafter “the instant school”) was for the public interest of the instant school teachers. As such, there was no intention to defame the victim or to defame the victim.

B. The lower court’s sentence of an unreasonable sentencing (three million won by fine) against the Defendant is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. “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. of Information and Communications Network Utilization and Information Protection, Etc., of determination of misunderstanding of facts and misapprehension of legal principles is required. The purpose of slandering a person is to consider all the circumstances concerning the expression itself, such as the content and nature of the relevant statement, the scope of the other party to whom the relevant fact was published, the method of expression, etc., and to compare and determine the degree of infringement of reputation that may be damaged or damaged by the said expression.

In addition, since the purpose of slandering is in conflict with that for the public interest in the direction of the actor's subjective intention, it is denied the purpose of slandering if the alleged facts are about the public interest, unless there are special circumstances.

Matters concerning public interest include not only those concerning the public interest of the State, society, and other general public, but also those concerning the interest and interest of a specific social group or the whole members thereof.

Furthermore, whether the alleged facts relate to the public interest or not is related to the public interest, which should be objectively known to the public, and which should contribute to the formation of public opinion or public debate in society.

arrow