The part on defamation is reversed.

A defendant shall be punished by a fine of one million won.

A. The victim E of defamation is the husband of F, who was going out of the election of the representative election, and the election management commission does not have to examine the grounds for disqualification in the objection procedure.

Therefore, there is a public performance that the defendant distributed false facts about victims to the members of the Election Management Committee as stated in the facts charged.

must be viewed.

B. Article 15-2(2) of the Security Business Act provides that “No one shall cause a security guard to perform any act beyond the scope of the security service,” and does not require “a security guard to force or exercise physical power against another person” and the Criminal Act separately provides for the provision related to a principal offender, in the application of the above provision, it does not require “a security guard to force another person or exercise physical power against another person”.

2. Determination as to defamation

A. The term “patent” of the relevant legal doctrine refers to a state in which an unspecified or many people can recognize.

Although there was spread of facts against one person or a specific minority individually;

In light of the overall circumstances at the time, such as the contents of the alleged fact, the relationship between the person, the offender, and the victim, there is a public performance in the event that there is no possibility of objectively spreading this;

subsection (b) of this section.

However, there is a performance, if there is no risk that the secret will be ensured and disseminated, and if it is possible to spread it to the outside, there is a performance.

2) Examining the following circumstances found by the evidence duly adopted and investigated by the lower court in light of the aforementioned legal doctrine, the Defendant is at the time and place indicated in this part of the facts charged.