logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 서울중앙지방법원 2015.11.19 2015노3633
정보통신망이용촉진및정보보호등에관한법률위반(명예훼손)
Text

The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

Reasons

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. The contents of the article posted by the Defendant of mistake of facts are directly fromO and is not false, but the Defendant posted the above contents on the idea that he would not be informed of the damage to the people interested in the four-day Art, and there was no purpose of slandering.

B. The lower court’s sentence of unreasonable sentencing (one million won of fine) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. In determining whether a publicly alleged fact in the crime of defamation by a publicly alleging false facts is false, if the content of the publicly alleged fact differs from the truth or is merely a somewhat exaggerated expression in light of the overall purport of the facts, it shall not be deemed false, but if the important part is not consistent with the objective fact, it shall be deemed as false.

(1) Article 70 of the Act on Promotion of Information and Communications Network Utilization and Information Protection, Etc. (hereinafter “the purpose of slandering a person”) provides for “the purpose of slandering a person” as prescribed by Article 70 of the Act on Promotion of Information and Communications Network Utilization and Information Protection, Etc., shall be determined by comparing and considering the overall circumstances pertaining to the expression itself, such as the content and nature of the relevant publicly alleged fact, the scope of the other party to whom the relevant fact was published, the method of expression, etc., as well as the degree of infringement of reputation that may be damaged or damaged by the said expression.

(2) In light of the following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and investigated by the lower court, it is reasonable to view that the Defendant’s distribution by revealing false facts in the comments on the Internet of this case and that there was a purpose of defamation.

(1) The defendant shall refund the circumstances in which comments on comments are posted at G private teaching institutes.

arrow