beta
(영문) 서울서부지방법원 2015.09.17 2015노986

무고등

Text

The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

Reasons

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. As to the mistake of facts and misapprehension of legal principle 1), the Defendant merely stated that the victim “in-house tax base” was “in-house tax base,” and there was no such statement as indicated in the facts charged, and it cannot be said that there was a public performance because only one student was made with the victim at the time. 2) As to the fact that the victim made a mistake of fact, it cannot be said that the Defendant reported a false fact.

B. The sentence of the lower court’s sentencing (eight months of imprisonment) is too heavy.

2. Determination

A. As to the assertion of mistake of facts and misapprehension of legal principles, 1) The following circumstances acknowledged by the court below comprehensively taking account of the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court below, i.e., the victim is engaged in a school at the time of the investigation agency and the court below, and the defendant stated the statement that he had made the same remarks as the facts charged, such as the statement in the facts charged, can be acknowledged by the defendant.

B) The public performance required for the establishment of the crime of insult refers to the state in which many and unspecified persons can be recognized. Even if a fact was distributed to one person individually, if there is a possibility of spreading it to many and unspecified persons, it shall be deemed that the requirements of public performance are satisfied. However, if there is no possibility of spreading any other fact, the spread of facts against a specific person shall be deemed to lack of public performance (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 89Do1467, Apr. 27, 1990). However, when the police is examined by the Defendant, the number of students was about 20 students in the class at the time, and the victim stated that only one student was given before his/her client, and the victim stated that only one second-year student was given at the time of his/her own trial as argued by the Defendant at the time, it cannot be said that there was no possibility of dissemination.