명예훼손
The judgment of the court below is reversed.
Defendant shall be punished by a fine of KRW 5,000,000.
but for three years from the date this judgment becomes final.
1. In full view of the following circumstances, the lower court erred by misapprehending the facts or by misapprehending the legal doctrine, thereby acquitted the Defendant of the facts charged.
In relation to the charges No. 1 of the crime list No. 1, in light of the following facts: (a) in the light of the fact indicated in the Grand Book 2, in the case of the fact alleged in the Grand Book 1, the relevant data held by the individual shall be submitted in order to obtain the individual selection points; and (b) the evidence submitted as evidence “data for recognition of individual selection points” is the data officially recognized by the two universities, the fact indicated in the Grand Book 2 is recognized to be false; and (c) in relation to the charges No. 2 of the crime list No. 2, the victim only delivers to the school the facts of the dispute between J and the defendant, who is an instructor, and did not seem to have a biased attitude; and (d) in light of the fact that the victim was at the position of the principal of the department for other reasons unrelated to the “compactive attitude”, the fact indicated in the Grand Book 2 is recognized to be false.
3 In relation to the facts charged Nos. 3 in the list of crimes, since the victim did not obtain a doctor’s degree by accepting the school’s opinion that “the fairness of the examination of the thesis is lacking”, it is recognized that the facts indicated in the list of crimes are false.
B. In light of the fact that it is possible to confirm the facts of this case in a relatively difficult way in view of the circumstances in which the defendant's perception of falsity stated the false facts of this case in the large newspaper, the importance and ripple history of the contents, and the status of the defendant, it is possible to confirm the objective facts in a relatively difficult way, but the fact was stated solely on the reason that the student was from the same student
C. Whether it solely aims at the public interest or not, even if it is assumed that the contents indicated in the crime sight list are true, the instant warning will be made.