명예훼손
The judgment of the court below is reversed.
The defendant is not guilty. The summary of the judgment against the defendant shall be published.
1. The facts charged of defamation of this case, which the court below found the defendant guilty and sentenced to a fine of KRW 2,00,000, is as follows.
The defendant shall be the chairperson of the senior citizen center in substantial Gu C in the Gu, and the E and the victim F are the members of the senior citizen center.
On October 2014, the Defendant was aware of the fact in the senior police officer center in the senior police officer center of the Republic of Korea on the following day: “I was a member of the same senior citizen center, and H was under the J relationship despite the absence of the fact that the victim and E had a sexual relationship.
J of defectiveness in the I test relationship
I would like to go back to the Israri, I would like to do so. I would have a relationship with I, and 20,000 won in money.
“The honor of the victim was damaged by openly pointing out false facts.”
2. Summary of the grounds for appeal and the judgment of the court below
A. The gist of the grounds for appeal is that the Defendant did not talk with G and H as stated in the facts charged.
The court below rendered a conviction against the defendant with only H's testimony, and the judgment of the court below is erroneous in the misapprehension of facts, which affected the conclusion of the judgment.
B. The Defendant and the defense counsel at the lower court also asserted the same as the grounds for appeal for mistake of the above facts, and the lower court found the Defendant guilty of the above facts charged on the following grounds by taking into account the witness F, H’s respective statutory statements, witness K, and L’s respective legal statements, F, and H as evidence.
The Defendant and his defense counsel asserted that the Defendant did not make a statement like the above facts charged at the hearing of G and H, and G also made a statement to the effect that it conforms to the Defendant’s defense counsel. However, G’s statement calls for doubt as to its credibility as a statement in a state where he is likely to be punished, while H’s investigative agency and this court’s statement that the Defendant appeared the same remarks as the above facts charged are specific and consistent, as well as the above H’s statement in this court.