[1] The standard for determining whether a publicly alleged fact constitutes defamation or defamation

[2] The case holding that the act of posting a statement of the victim's same sex on the Internet website constitutes defamation

[1] Article 307 of the Criminal Act / [2] Article 307 of the Criminal Act, Article 61 of the Act on Promotion of Information and Communications Network Utilization and Information Protection, Etc.

[1] Supreme Court Decision 93Do696 delivered on June 28, 1994 (Gong1994Ha, 2145) Supreme Court Decision 94Do1770 delivered on October 25, 1994 (Gong1994Ha, 3166) Supreme Court Decision 98Do2188 delivered on February 25, 200 (Gong200Sang, 885)

Defendant

Defendant

Seoul Central District Court Decision 2007No120 Decided June 12, 2007

The appeal is dismissed.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

1. For the establishment of defamation, a specific fact must be indicated that is likely to infringe on a specific person’s social value or evaluation (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 98Do2188, Feb. 25, 2000). Whether an expression is defamation should be determined by an objective evaluation in accordance with the social norms of the expression. Therefore, even if an expression is used in value neutrality, if it is deemed that a certain person’s social evaluation has deteriorated due to such an expression, the crime of defamation may be established.

According to the reasoning of the judgment below, the court below affirmed the judgment of the court of first instance that found the defendant guilty on the ground that the defendant's act of posting the above writing constitutes an act that defames the victim's reputation, and it is proper to determine the judgment of the court below in light of the above legal principles and records, and there is no violation of the rules of evidence, incomplete deliberation, or misapprehension of legal principles as to the crime of defamation, etc., as alleged in the grounds of appeal.

2. In addition, in this case where the defendant was sentenced to a fine, the reason that the amount of punishment is too heavy cannot be a legitimate ground for appeal.

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

Justices Kim Hwang-sik (Presiding Justice)