명예훼손
The judgment of the court below is reversed.
Defendant shall be punished by a fine of two million won.
The defendant does not pay a fine.
1. Summary of grounds for appeal;
A. The purport of Article 1 of the written consent of mistake of facts and misunderstanding of legal principles is that the Director of the Management Office entered into a negotiated contract even though it is subject to competitive bidding, rather than that the Director of the Management Office would have entered into a negotiated contract. Paragraph 4 of the written consent also is that “the CCTV installation contract of an excessive amount was concluded” rather than that it did not provide residents with an opportunity to state their opinions. Therefore, even if the written consent is false, the content of written consent cannot be deemed false, and even if the written content is false, there are justifiable grounds for the Defendant to believe that the written content is true.
Nevertheless, the lower court found the Defendant guilty of the facts charged of this case. In so determining, the lower court erred by misapprehending the legal doctrine on defamation, thereby adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment.
B. Even if there is no unreasonable sentencing, the lower court’s sentencing (fine of three million won) is too unreasonable.
2. Judgment on misconception of facts and misapprehension of legal principles
A. Although the Defendant denies this part of the facts charged at the lower court’s judgment as in this part of the charges, the Defendant’s written consent regarding Article 1 of the written consent, i.e., the following circumstances that can be acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and investigated by the lower court and the lower court, i.e., the written consent by the Defendant to the occupants, (i) the written consent by the managing director, which was presented by the Defendant, violated the Housing Act by voluntarily concluding a private contract with the managing director, rather than a competitive bid, and thereby, was imposed an administrative fine of KRW 3 million; (ii) the fact that the contract for a construction is concluded by a private contract is consistent with the fact that the contract for a construction contract was concluded by the council of occupants’ representatives; (iii) the Defendant was aware of the aforementioned circumstances by participating in the resolution; and (iv) the Defendant signed the written consent that “F