명예훼손등
Defendant
All appeals filed by A and the prosecutor against the Defendants are dismissed.
1. Summary of grounds for appeal;
A. Of the facts charged in the instant case, the lower court found Defendant A guilty of violating the Act on Promotion, etc. of Information and Communications Network Utilization and Information Protection (Defamation) due to the publication of the Defendant A’s Kakakakao Stockholm Group on the Information and Communications Network Utilization and Information Protection (Defamation), but it is difficult to deem that Defendant A’s above act was merely a simple statement of opinion, and it is also difficult to view that it was a mere expression of facts, and the illegality of the act was excluded as it solely
B. Of the facts charged in the instant case, the lower court acquitted Defendant A of the facts charged, as to the violation of the Act on Promotion, etc. of Information and Communications Network Utilization and Information Protection (Defamation) due to posting comments on the Internet homepage, and the violation of the Act on Promotion, etc. of Information and Communications Network Utilization and Information Protection (Defamation), and B, and C. However, each of the facts charged in the instant part cannot be deemed to constitute cases where illegality is excluded or where there is no purpose of
2. Determination
A. As to the prosecutor’s assertion of mistake of facts, the Defendants in this part of the facts charged are members of the FF association, and all operators of G. (A) defamation (1) Defendants co-offendered in Jung-gu, Daegu on May 7, 2014, produced approximately 3,000 copies of the document “M No. 1” in the name of L, Defendant C, and Defendant B in a non-printed printing office located in Daegu-gu.
In the above document, there was a statement to the effect that “the Internet media report was made with regard to the non-human rights relationship of female employees who worked in the victim J, the president of the above union,.”
From May 2014 to June 201 of the same year, the Defendants distributed “M No. 1” produced by approximately 3,000 members of the transport training institute that received G continuing education.
Accordingly, the Defendants jointly do so.