Defendant shall be punished by a fine of KRW 1,000,000.

The above fine shall not be paid by the defendant.

A. The lower court found the Defendant guilty of all the facts charged in the instant case as to the Defendant’s insult, insult against I, and defamation against J and D, and sentenced the Defendant to a fine of KRW 2.5 million.

B. The Defendant, prior to remand, filed an appeal against the lower judgment on the grounds of misunderstanding of facts or misunderstanding of legal principles as to the part of injury and defamation, but this Court dismissed the Defendant’s appeal.

C. While the Defendant filed an appeal against the above judgment on the grounds of misapprehending the legal principles, the Supreme Court determined that there was error by misapprehending the legal principles as to defamation portion, which affected the conclusion of the judgment by failing to exhaust all necessary deliberations, the judgment before remanding the above part is in a concurrent crime relationship under the former part of Article 37 of the Criminal Act, and thus, the entire judgment should be reversed.

2. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. The Defendant, who is in fact of injury, committed a fighting match with the victim I in a tension with the victim I, but there is no fact that the Defendant, as stated in the facts charged, inflicted an injury upon the victim I’s face.

B. As to the part of J and D’s defamation (definite or misunderstanding of legal principles), the Defendant did not mean that “D and the victim J have received money from the company,” and the Defendant distributed the judgment and revealed the fact of embezzlement by the victim J. This is solely for the public interest, and its illegality is dismissed by Article 310 of the Criminal Act.

In addition, with respect to the victim D, only argued to the effect that the victim D was negligent in management relating to embezzlement by the J, and the victim D did not say that the victim D committed embezzlement in collusion with the J, so Article 307(1) of the Criminal Act, not Article 307(2) of the Criminal Act, should be applied, and even if so, there were some false facts.