logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 인천지방법원 2017.01.20 2016노4442
정보통신망이용촉진및정보보호등에관한법률위반(명예훼손)
Text

The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

Reasons

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Fact-misunderstanding ① Defendant did not recognize that the content of the comments of this case is false when posting the comments of this case, and ② the content of the comments is about the public interest, and thus, it should be denied “the purpose of slandering”.

Nevertheless, the judgment of the court below which found the defendant guilty of the facts charged of this case is erroneous and adversely affected by the judgment.

B. The sentence sentenced by the lower court to the Defendant (an amount of KRW 700,000) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. 1) The above misunderstanding of fact: (a) It is difficult to find out or prove that an offender was a false fact in the crime of defamation by a false statement of false facts in light of its nature; (b) it is inevitable to determine by comprehensively taking account of various objective circumstances, such as the Defendant’s educational background, career, social status, process of publication, time of publication, and anticipated ripple effect on the basis of the content and identity of the published fact, the existence and content of the materials materials, the source and awareness of the fact revealed by the Defendant; and (c) the intent of the crime includes not only conclusive intention but also dolusent intention, which is the intention to recognize it; (d) the crime of defamation by a false statement of false facts is also established by dolusent intentional intention (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2013Do12430, Mar. 13, 2014). Such legal doctrine likewise applies to the crime of defamation by a false statement of false facts under Article 70(2) of the Act on Promotion of the Use of Information and Information Protection, Etc.

As to this case, the following circumstances revealed by the evidence duly adopted and investigated by the lower court, namely, the Defendant, who was a victim of a crime, posted the content of the case to the Internet portal site in writing without any confirmation as to its source or fact.

arrow