Act on Promotion of Information and Communications Network Utilization and Information Protection, Etc.

(Defamation)

A

Ise (prosecution) and Kim Young-type (public trial)

Public-service Advocates B (National Ship)

March 26, 2015

A defendant shall be punished by a fine of KRW 500,000. If the defendant fails to pay the fine, the defendant shall be confined in a workhouse for a period of one hundred thousand won converted into one day.

The defendant shall be ordered to pay an amount equivalent to the above fine by provisional payment.

Criminal facts

The defendant, as the chairperson of the Seoul Nowon-gu Seoul Special Metropolitan City, was the representative of the C Apartment Dong, on December 30, 2013, around 00:0, at the defendant's house 33 Dong 109 Dong-dong, Seoul Special Metropolitan City, Nowon-gu's apartment apartment 33 Dong 109, using the computer's Internet domains, and damaged the reputation of the above victim by openly pointing out the fact that the above victim's accusation was made against the victim's accusation, which was sent by the defendant to the Seoul Northern District Prosecutors' Office (Type 63200) in relation to the case (Type 63200). The investigation was directed at the Seoul Nowon-gu Seoul Nowon Police Station on December 24, 2013, and it was planned to receive and process it after being investigated by the Seoul Nowon-gu Police Station. (Seoul Northern District Prosecutors' Office G Prosecutor's Office).)

Summary of Evidence

1. The defendant's partial statement [the part concerning the fact that the mail was transmitted, the part concerning the reasons why the mail was transmitted] 1. Each legal statement of witness F, D and H

1. Statement of the police statement concerning F;

1. A complaint;

1. Efabrys of the reception screen of non-fabio e-mail, and cell phone photographs;

Judgment on the argument of the defendant and defense counsel

1. Summary of the assertion

The defendant and his defense counsel asserts that ① transmission of a course photograph by the defendant cannot be deemed to have indicated detailed facts sufficiently to be infringed on social values or evaluation, ② in light of the relationship between the victim and D and the victim, there is no possibility that D may spread the contents of e-mail transmitted by the defendant to others, and ③ there was no purpose of slandering them as acts for public interest.

2. Determination

A. First, we examine whether a specific fact that is likely to infringe on social value or assessment is publicly known. Whether an expression is defamation should be determined by an objective evaluation in accordance with the social norms of the expression. Even if a person used a value-oriented expression, if it is judged that the social evaluation of a specific person has deteriorated due to social norms, the crime of defamation may be established (see Supreme Court Decision 2007Do5077, Jan. 10, 2007; 2007Do507, Feb. 25, 2007). Unlike the fact that a person files a criminal charge or files a criminal complaint, the general perception or social belief about the fact that a person is accused of a crime is somewhat negative. Considering that the Criminal Act provides that a person’s disclosure of the facts known to him in the course of performing his duties is a crime prior to the request for public trial, it is reasonable to view that the fact that the victim was subject to investigation is likely to infringe on social value or assessment since the victim’s transmission of the e-mail to the Seoul prosecutor’s office or police station.

Therefore, this part of the defendant and defense counsel cannot be accepted.

B. Next, we examine whether the e-mail content transmitted to D is likely to be disseminated to an unspecified or many unspecified persons. We examine whether the e-mail content transmitted to D is likely to be disseminated. The celebbed D stated in this court that, after receiving the e-mail from the Defendant in this court, the Defendant knew of the contents of the e-mail to several persons, who are not in mind, with the mind that he/she would be informed of the fact that he/she would be subject to complaint. According to the above statement, it can be recognized that the fact that the e-mail was actually disseminated beyond the possibility of radio waves, and in light of the interests of the Defendant, the victim, and D, it is reasonable to view that the Defendant had an intent to allow the risk

C. Finally, we examine whether the Defendant’s act was for the public interest and was not for the purpose of slandering a person. “Purpose of slandering a person” as prescribed by Article 70(1) and (2) of the Act on Promotion of Information and Communications Network Utilization and Information Protection, Etc. is required for the intent or purpose of deception. As such, whether there was the purpose of slandering a person ought to be determined by considering all the circumstances regarding 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 by comparing and considering the degree of infringement of reputation that may be damaged or damaged by the expression (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 2006Do648, Aug. 25, 2006; 2008Do8812, May 28, 2009).

In relation to the instant case, when D, as an auditor of the Eastern Group, continuously presented the opposing opinion to the Defendant in relation to the selection of the CCTV installation company in the apartment complex, the Defendant, and the Defendant were in conflict with each other, and the Defendant sent the instant mail to inform that the instant mail may adversely affect the operation of the apartment due to the occurrence of the instant case, as in the case of the victim. Therefore, in light of the motive that the Defendant sent D the mail to D, the relationship between the Defendant and the victim, and D, the details and nature of the fact indicated by the closure photographs transmitted to D, the closure photographs sent to the attached file, and the contents of the pen (if the document is sent to B, the notice of the result is known), it cannot be deemed that the Defendant’s major motive or purpose is for the public interest, such as the operation of the apartment or the interests of the residents, and it is reasonable to view that the Defendant had the intent to defame the victim. Therefore, this part of the Defendant and the defense counsel also did not accept this part of the allegation.

Application of Statutes

1. Article relevant to the facts constituting an offense and the selection of punishment;

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

1. Detention in a workhouse;

Articles 70(1) and 69(2) of the Criminal Act

1. Order of provisional payment;

Article 334(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act

Judges Dok-be