명예훼손등
The judgment of the court below is reversed.
A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for not less than eight months.
1. Summary of the grounds for appeal (misunderstanding of facts, misunderstanding of legal principles, and improper sentencing)
A. misunderstanding of facts and legal principles 1) The Defendant did not explicitly indicate false facts on each printed article listed in the facts charged (hereinafter “the instant printed article”). Even if not, the Defendant stated the content from the N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N NN that the contents indicated in the said printed article are true, and there was no intention to commit the crime of defamation of reputation of false facts on the grounds of
B. Since the defendant acted for the public interest of M Order, illegality is excluded.
2) The other party who sent the instant printed matter is either the complainant who is the party to the printed matter indicated in the printed matter or a person who has a close relationship with the complainant as the source of M. M... Thus, there is no risk of spreading the instant printed matter to many and unspecified persons.
B. The sentence of the lower court’s improper sentencing (eight months of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.
2. Before determining the grounds for appeal by the Defendant’s ex officio, this paper examined ex officio.
According to the records, on May 15, 2013, the Defendant was sentenced to two years and six months of imprisonment for fraud, etc. at the Busan District Court [the Busan District Court 2012 High Court 9162, 2013 High Court 436 High Court 436 (Consolidation)] and on November 6, 2014, sentenced to one year of imprisonment at the appellate court (the Busan District Court 2013No. 1706) (the Supreme Court 2013No. 1706). The judgment became final and conclusive on November 14, 2014. However, it can be recognized that the execution of the sentence was terminated by being released by the court’s decision of revocation of detention on November 13, 2014.
Therefore, each of the crimes in the judgment below against the defendant is a crime committed within three years from the completion date of the above punishment, and a punishment shall be determined within the scope of punishment aggravated for repeated crime pursuant to Article 35 of the Criminal Act. However, the judgment of the court below is erroneous in omitting the aggravation of repeated crime. Thus, the judgment of the court below cannot be maintained.
However, as above.