명예훼손
The judgment of the court below is reversed.
The defendant shall be innocent.
1. The summary of the grounds for appeal did not have made a statement to F as stated in the facts charged that “E has used it excessively and has been used for contact with the executive officers of E trading company for the purpose of contact with the executive officers of the president.” Furthermore, even if the Defendant made the above remarks, the Defendant did not have any criminal intent to impair E’s reputation in light of the circumstances surrounding such remarks, etc., and such remarks merely for the public interest as they are true facts, and thus, it is not unlawful.
Nevertheless, the judgment of the court below which found the Defendant guilty of the facts charged of this case is erroneous by misapprehending the rules of evidence or by misapprehending the legal principles as to the grounds for excluding the illegality of defamation.
2. The summary of the facts charged, around 13:00 on December 28, 2010, the Defendant damaged the reputation of the complainant by openly pointing out false facts, stating that “E uses it excessively at the end of the week and uses it for contact with the executive officers of E companies upon receiving the president’s president’s business intention,” although there was no fact that the victim E used it unfairly.
3. The Defendant and his defense counsel in the lower court’s judgment: ① unlike the facts charged, the Defendant’s statement that the Defendant made to F was, “The victim, as a result of the audit, has been using more than one second for business purpose, and the victim would have actually promised to do so even at the end of three weeks used as his partner,” which is not a true fact, but a mere confirmation answer to F, and thus cannot be deemed as a statement of facts as referred to in defamation. ③ In light of the relationship between F and the victim, there was no possibility of spreading, and ④ The Defendant’s statement to F was made by the victim.