In a case where Defendant in charge of English curriculum at an alternative school was indicted for defamation, violation of the Act on Promotion of Information and Communications Network Utilization and Information Protection, Etc. (Defamation) by speaking that Party A is not the spirit of the principal of the school or embling Party A’s school property, the case affirming the judgment below convicting Defendant of the charges on the same purport, on the ground that the Defendant committed the above acts with the intent of criticizeing Party A for the purpose of pursuing one’s own interest, not for the purpose of normalization of school operation or student’s right to learning, etc., in conflict with Party A’s receipt of user fees by introducing the English education program for which Company A, including the provision of educational content operated separately

Articles 307(1) and 310 of the Criminal Act; Article 70(1) of the Act on Promotion of Information and Communications Network Utilization and Information Protection, Etc.

Defendant

Defendant

Law Firm L&L Partners, Attorneys Lee Jin-ri et al.

Suwon District Court Decision 2018No1517 decided June 18, 2020

The appeal is dismissed.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

The court below rejected the defendant's assertion that the victim's remarks in this case that he did not have a mental disorder is about an individual's personal affairs, and that it is difficult to see that it has a positive effect on the normalization of school operation through the remarks in this case, and that the notice in this case that the victim embezzled school property, with respect to the objective meaning of this case's article and its degree of inconsistency with the objective, and that the defendant's attack against the victim during a dispute over school operation, was about a attack against the victim, and that there was no purpose of or against the victim, and found the defendant guilty of each charges in this case.

Examining in light of the relevant legal principles and the evidence duly admitted, in this case, the defendant, who was in charge of English curriculum of an alternative school, was deemed to have posted a statement in the facts charged that criticizeed the victim for the purpose of pursuing his own interest, not for the normalization of school operation or the student's right to learn, but for the purpose of pursuing his own interest, due to the fact that he was provided with English education programs for which the principal is the victim and the company, including the provision of educational content that he operated separately, was entitled to claim by the student, etc., the court below did not err by misapprehending the legal principles on the "public interest" as provided by Article 310 of the Criminal Act and the "purpose of non-disclosure" as provided by Article 70 (1) of the Act on Promotion of Information and Communications Network

Therefore, the appeal is dismissed. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

Justices Noh Tae-tae (Presiding Justice)