beta
(영문) 서울서부지방법원 2019.07.18 2019노406

명예훼손

Text

The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

Reasons

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. misunderstanding of facts or misunderstanding of legal principles is limited to employees of the church that received a telephone, and there was no performance in the act of the Defendant. 2) The victim D did not seem to be satisfy against the Defendant even after the injury was inflicted by assaulting the Defendant.

The defendant thought that it is improper for the victim to go against the church while hiding his previous convictions, and pointed out this point for the benefit of the whole members of the above church and only demanded the replacement of the accompanists.

Therefore, the illegality of the defendant's act is excluded in accordance with Article 310 of the Criminal Code.

3) Therefore, the lower court erred by misapprehending the facts or by misapprehending the legal doctrine regarding the Defendant’s defamation. B. The lower court’s sentence (one million won of a fine) declared by the lower court is too unreasonable.

2. Judgment on misconception of facts or misapprehension of legal principles

A. As to the public performance, “public performance”, which is the constituent element of the crime of defamation, refers to the state in which many, unspecified persons can be recognized, and even if one has distributed facts individually to one person, if there is a possibility of spreading to the unspecified or many, the requirement of performance is satisfied (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 96Do1007, Jul. 12, 1996). The following circumstances are acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and investigated at the court below. In other words, it is difficult to view that the public performance of the case was in a relationship to the extent that the contents delivered by the Defendant are not notified to the unspecified or many, because there is no personal-friendly relationship with the victim. ② The Defendant did not appear to have requested the employees of the above church to refrain from spreading the Defendant’s speech. ③ The Defendant is identical to the facts charged in this case on December 15, 2017 and at the same time on February 20, 2017.