[1] The meaning of "the purpose of slandering a person" under Article 61 (1) of the Act on Promotion of Information and Communications Network Utilization and Information Protection, Etc. and the method of determining such "the purpose"

[2] The case affirming the judgment of the court below which held that since it is reasonable to view that the defendant's writing posted on the Internet site is for the public interest, etc., it cannot be deemed that there is a purpose of slandering

[1] Article 61(1) of the Act on Promotion of Information and Communications Network Utilization and Information Protection, Etc., Article 309(1) of the Criminal Act / [2] Article 61(1) of the Act on Promotion of Information and Communications Network Utilization and Information

[1] Supreme Court Decision 97Do158 delivered on October 9, 1998 (Gong1998Ha, 2715), Supreme Court Decision 98Do2188 delivered on February 25, 2000 (Gong2000Sang, 885), Supreme Court Decision 2003Do6036 Delivered on December 26, 2003 (Gong2004Sang, 317), Supreme Court Decision 2003Do2137 Delivered on April 29, 2005 (Gong2005Sang, 882)

Defendant

Prosecutor

Busan District Court Decision 2005No1101 Delivered on June 22, 2005

The appeal is dismissed.

We examine the grounds of appeal.

“Purpose of slandering a person” under Article 61(1) of the Act on Promotion of Information and Communications Network Utilization and Information Protection, Etc. is to “the purpose of slandering a person” under Article 309(1) of the Criminal Act, as well as to “the purpose of slandering a person” under Article 309(1) of the Criminal Act. Thus, in a case where a publicly alleged fact concerns the public interest, unless there are special circumstances, it is reasonable to deem that the objective of slandering a person is to be denied. Here, “where a publicly alleged fact concerns the public interest” refers to the publicly alleged fact concerning the public interest, and an offender must also indicate the fact for the public interest. It includes not only the matter pertaining to the interests of the State, society, and other general public, but also the interest and interest of a particular social group or its entire members, and whether the publicly alleged fact relates to the public interest or not, 200, 30, 20, 20, 20, 30, 20, 9, 20, 20, 9, etc.

After finding facts as stated in its holding, the court below held that the defendant's act of publishing the contents in its holding on the Internet site of this case is for public interest because it is reasonable to view that the defendant's main purpose is to thoroughly investigate the suspicion of embezzlement of the former Resident Support Fund and to urge appropriate operation of the residents support fund in the future, and that there is no purpose of defamation. In light of the records and the above legal principles, the court below's fact-finding and determination are just and acceptable, and there is no error of law such as misunderstanding of legal principles as to "the purpose of corruption" and misunderstanding of facts against the rules of evidence. The argument in the grounds of appeal cannot be accepted.

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

Justices Lee Han-won (Presiding Justice)