Text
The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.
Reasons
1. The summary of the grounds for appeal by the Defendant cannot be seen as an insult of a minor level, most insulting expressions.
Since the defendant unilaterally slanders the victim as a person without any explanation on the motive or background of the defendant's preparation of the above article, it cannot be deemed that the defendant made a statement to the purport that he/she reveals the defendant's opinion about the facts objectively reasonable.
The requirements for the reasonableness of means or balance of legal interests, such as the fact that not only the real name of the victim but also the position and address of the victim, have been significantly satisfied in the open Internet block.
Therefore, the judgment of the court below which acquitted the defendant by applying the act that does not violate the social norms stipulated in Article 20 of the Criminal Code is erroneous in the misunderstanding of legal principles.
2. The lower court found the Defendant not guilty of the facts charged on the following grounds, which were duly admitted and examined by the lower court, based on the evidence duly admitted and examined.
It is recognized that the Defendant, like the facts charged, posted a letter that seems to insult the victim on the Internet portal site as shown in the facts charged.
① However, in order to receive the right to receive the payment of the new forest from the injured party, the Defendant: (a) provided the injured party with crypted articles equivalent to KRW 2,00,00,000, and agricultural and fishery products equivalent to KRW 1,700,000; and (b) provided the Defendant with 3,80,000,000, around September 19, 201; (c) provided the Defendant with money to the extent that the Defendant is unable to cope with; and (d) caused economic difficulties in receiving the right to receive the payment of the new forest; (c) the Defendant was unable to receive the said new forest from the injured party; and (d) the Defendant was the injured party on the grounds that he received the right to receive the payment of the new forest in question; and (d) the Defendant included the above crypted articles on the Defendant’s personal Internet block.