[1] The degree of statement of facts necessary to establish a crime of violation of Article 61 (1) of the Information and Communications Network Utilization and Information Promotion Act

[2] The standard for determining whether an expressive act via an information and communications network constitutes a publicly alleged fact

[3] The case holding that the article posted on the bulletin board of the Gun Office website cannot be deemed as a statement of defamation

[1] In order to establish a crime of violation of Article 61(1) of the Act on Promotion of Information and Communications Network Utilization and Information Protection, etc., a statement of fact must be made, and the alleged fact should be so that it may be likely to infringe on the social value or evaluation of a specific person.

[2] In a case where a certain expressive act posted through an information and communications network becomes a problem in relation to the crime in question, whether the expression is a statement of fact or simply an expression of opinion or comment, or if an expression of opinion or comment is made at the same time, whether the facts constituting the premise is indicated or not, at the same time, indicated at the same time, should be determined based on the objective contents of the relevant notice, and on the ordinary meaning of the words used in the notice, overall flow of the notice, method of linking the words, etc. under the premise that the general public communicates with the posting at a normal level at the same time. In addition, it should also be determined based on the social flow, etc., which is a broad context or background, rather than on which the relevant notice is published.

[3] The case holding that the article posted on the bulletin board of the Gun Office website cannot be deemed as a statement of defamation

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

[1] Supreme Court Decision 94Do1770 delivered on October 25, 1994 (Gong1994Ha, 3166) / [2] Supreme Court Decision 98Da31356 delivered on February 9, 199 (Gong199Sang, 458) Supreme Court Decision 98Do2188 delivered on February 25, 200 (Gong2000Sang, 885)

Defendant

Prosecutor

Attorney Park Jong-won

Chuncheon District Court Decision 2002No688 delivered on March 21, 2003

The appeal is dismissed.

We examine the grounds of appeal.

In order to establish a crime of violation of Article 61(1) of the Act on Promotion, etc. of Information and Communications Network Utilization and Information Protection, Etc., a statement of fact must be made, and the alleged fact should be made to the extent that the social value or evaluation of a specific person is likely to be infringed. In a case where certain expressive act posted through an information and communications network becomes a problem in relation to the crime of the above crime, whether the expression is a statement of fact or simply an expression of opinion or comment, or if an expression of opinion or comment is made at the same time, whether the facts constituting the premise is explicitly indicated, or not, at the same time, at the same time,. The distinction between the following: (a) the ordinary meaning of the words used in the notice on the premise of the general public’s care; (b) the overall flow of the notices; and (c) the connection method of phrases, etc.; and (d) the larger than the context or background of the relevant notice should also be considered together with the social flow, etc. (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2004Do179898.

According to the reasoning of the judgment of the court below, the defendant worked as the second head of Gangwon-gu Office No. 1, 200 on Sep. 20, 2001, and as the title "after accessing a computer for the purpose of slandering the victim who is the chairperson of the first group of the defendant's house at around 361-28 on Sep. 20, 201, the defendant was a shot dog of the victim's chairperson. First, the representative of the first group of the residents of the 1st group of the 1st group of the 1st group of the 1st group of the 1st group of the 1st group of the 1st group of the 1st group of the 1st group of the 1st group of the 1st group of the 1st group of the 1st group of the 1st group of the 1st group of the 1st group of the 1st group of the 1st group of the 1st group of the 1st group of the 1st group of the village members.

Of the contents of a notice, the part in which the Defendant stated the victim’s speech cannot be deemed to correspond to objective facts, and the content itself cannot be deemed to have the possibility of infringing the victim’s social value or assessment, and there are no special circumstances that may lead to defamation if connected to relevant facts. Moreover, among the contents of a notice, the part in which the Defendant expressed the victim’s opinion together with stating the facts that form the basis of the opinion, is a pure opinion or comment that does not indirectly constitute a case where the Defendant explicitly expresses a specific matter concerning another person that can be determined by evidence, and that said part is an indirect or indirect statement of fact. Therefore, it cannot be deemed that there was a statement of fact in that part.

The court below's finding the defendant not guilty of the above facts charged is just in accordance with the above legal principles, and there is no error in the misapprehension of legal principles as to the statement of facts, as alleged in the grounds

The precedents cited in the grounds of appeal are different from the case and the case, and it is not appropriate to be invoked in this case.

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

Justices Seo-sung (Presiding Justice)