명예훼손
The judgment of the court below is reversed.
Defendants are not guilty. The summary of this judgment is publicly announced.
1. The lower court found the Defendants guilty on July 21, 2014 of the instant facts charged, on the ground that the Defendants’ act in front of the National Assembly’s death on July 28, 2014 among the facts charged under paragraph (1) (wholly part of the facts charged in the lower judgment, and the Defendant A’s act of defamation on July 21, 2014 under paragraph (2) (wholly included in the facts charged in the lower judgment) was not proven. However, the lower court acquitted the Defendants on the charge of defamation on July 28, 2014, on the ground that there was no proof of a crime.
Therefore, in the instant case where only the Defendants appealed, the part of the lower judgment’s acquittal on the grounds of the crime of defamation was judged in the first instance on July 28, 2014 as well as the part of the conviction for the crime of defamation, but was exempted from the scope of public defense among the parties. As such, the lower judgment’s conclusion of innocence as to this part is followed and it is not re-determined.
2. Summary of reasons for appeal;
A. Fact-misunderstanding 1) Regarding the crime of defamation on July 21, 2014, Defendant A (hereinafter “Defendant A”), there is room for misunderstanding that there was a phrase “if a local community member had a criminal record (e.g., loan brokerage, fraud, threat, etc.), whether he/she should resign” among several diskettes posted by Defendant at the time. However, there is room for misunderstanding that such questioning would be “the victim G has a criminal record, such as fraud, intimidation, etc.”
However, the lower court did not deem that the Defendant publicly alleged false facts on the ground that there was possibility of mistake as above.
The wrong determination was made.
B) In relation to the crime of defamation on July 28, 2014, the lower court held that the Defendants are qualified as a member of the National Assembly by the Chairman of the Gongcheon Review Committee, who granted the Defendants a preference of strategic contribution to the records of the crime in front of the headquarters of the D branch.
Resignation, and <1> The fact that the record of the crime to be provided by a person who is pro rata to a female member is the head of the Si/Gun/Gu, is the head of the Si/Gun/Gu.
G, in other words, the “sub-substation” and “Ch”.