명예훼손
The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.
1. According to the recording of conversations between the defendant and I submitted by the defendant and I, it seems clear that I used the same words as the facts charged. The time is around April 201; I is not the direct party of the instant case; and it is rather natural that I is unable to memory detailed matters, which is not the direct party of the instant case. In addition, the defendant does not simply confirm the answer, but rather speaks to the effect that the complainant has the right, so the defendant may be recognized as defamation.
Nevertheless, the judgment of the court below rendered a not guilty verdict on the facts charged of this case. The court below erred by misunderstanding facts and affecting the conclusion of the judgment.
2. Determination
A. The summary of the facts charged in the instant case is the head of the education project team team of the D Cultural Foundation, E, the head of the D Cultural Foundation management support headquarters, and F, the head of the D Cultural Foundation customer support team.
On April 201, the Defendant damaged the honor of E and F by publicly pointing out false facts, “E and F are dead, E and F, even at the time when F entered the D Cultural Foundation. E were employed by E at the time of entry into the D Cultural Foundation.”
B. The lower court stated that ① I and J testified in the lower court court’s decision that the relationship between E and F was first made by the Defendant on April 201, 201, while I testified that the relationship between E and F was made from the Defendant at that time, I had no 3-4 meals in a cafeteria and there was no J, and the Defendant “E and F had a private right when E and F were employed. F were employed.” On the other hand, J is aware that “E and F had a private right.”