beta
(영문) 청주지방법원 2016.05.12 2015노1504

명예훼손

Text

The judgment of the court below is reversed.

The defendant shall be innocent.

Reasons

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. In fact, the "Chairperson" of an environmental organization mentioned in the radio interview by the defendant is not in mind of the victim I, who is the present chairperson, but is in mind in mind of the former chairperson, and thus, the defendant did not have an intention to impair the victim I's reputation.

B. The sentence of the lower court’s improper sentencing (2 million won) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. On July 21, 2015, at the “C” office operated by the Defendant in Chungcheongnam-gun B around 18:05, the summary of the facts charged lies in the following: (a) while the Defendant had a real-time interview with F of “E”, which is a radio broadcasting program of D, for questioning about the activities of the regional environmental organization, the Defendant was asked about the activities of the regional environmental organization.

This is because 40 years or more have passed since the Republic of Korea has lived in this area.

그런 데 언젠가는 이게 좀 밋밋 해지는 부분이 있는 것 같더라고요.

Therefore, there is an organization, but it is not possible to talk.

There is an environmental organization as stated in “G” and “G”.

However, it is necessary to see that the chairman of the Negi environmental organization has a thickness, and it is possible to talk about it because there are some parts.

For example, it is very hot that the talker is unable to talk because it had been done more.

In the organization, the victim I, the only environmental organization in G, expressed to the effect that the victim I, as the head of the environmental organization, takes advantage of the environmental monitoring duty for cement companies as the head of the environmental organization, while engaging in private transport transactions with cement companies in the region.

However, the victim did not have any profit or trade with cement company.

As a result, the Defendant, by pointing out false facts, damaged the honor of the victim.

(b).