A is a person who was resigned from the G on April 16, 2013, and the defendant was the vice president.

K Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “K”) takes into account the fact that there was a dispute related to the business prior to this case as a company engaging in the same type of business as G, the main motive or purpose of the Defendant cannot be deemed to be related to the public interest, and therefore there was a purpose of slandering the Defendant.

must be viewed.

Nevertheless, the court below acquitted the Defendant of the facts charged of this case. The court below erred by misapprehending the facts or by misapprehending the legal principles, which affected the conclusion of the judgment

2. Determination

A. The summary of the facts charged in the instant case as indicated by the prosecutor is as follows. The prosecutor’s following acts by the Defendant’s person constituted defamation through publications, etc. under Article 309 of the Criminal Act. However, the Defendant was aware that the time was false.

Since there is no evidence to view, Article 307(1) of the Criminal Act is deemed to have been a factual defamation, and accordingly, Article 309(1) of the Criminal Act should be applied.

The Defendant, on October 2014, recorded a false statement from the K office located in Songpa-gu Seoul Metropolitan City L in his/her mobile phone with a mobile phone, and did not verify the falsity of the fact. On October 20, 2014, the Defendant had difficulties in performing his/her duties, such as reducing sales volume in relation to the expansion file produced and sold by the Victim G around October 20, 2014.

I would like to think that the G was aware of it with a view to slandering it.

H The above-mentioned files are recorded to T which is the executive director.