명예훼손교사
All appeals filed by the prosecutor against the Defendants are dismissed.
1. The summary of the grounds for appeal is that Defendant B was not a E member, and that Defendant B was aware that Defendant B was conducting the instant diskettes demonstration for public interest.
Therefore, even if Defendant B’s act of defamation does not constitute illegality, the lower court did not err by misapprehending legal doctrine, or by misapprehending facts, acquitted Defendant A of each of the facts charged.
2. Summary of the facts charged
A. Defendant A is the Chairperson of the Incorporated Association E, the victim F is the former Chairperson of the said Incorporated Association, and the victim G is the former Secretary General.
Defendant
A calls from May 22, 2015 to 19:00, Defendant B called Defendant B, and called “F that embezzled the public funds of the E, and demands G to investigate the detention,” and around that time, Defendant B delivered the PP stating “F and G that “100,000 people are employed, and the prosecutor’s office embezzled money to good members, the prosecutor’s office is detained,” and let the Defendant B use the PPet stating the above contents, from May 22, 2015 to May 22, 2015, to 174 Seoul Western District Public Prosecutor’s Office (Seoul Western District Public Prosecutor’s Office).
Accordingly, Defendant A instigated Defendant B to impair the honor of Victim F and Victim G by openly pointing out facts.
B. Defendant B received KRW 200,000 per day from Defendant A, and as above, Defendant A’s teachers were as follows; Defendant B passed from May 22, 2015 to May 19:00, and from May 22, 2015 to May 19:00, Defendant Mapo-gu, Seoul Western District Public Prosecutor’s Office, 174 Seoul Western District Public Prosecutor’s Office, “F and G, which embezzled money to good members, are divided by only 100,000 users, are detained (g) EE.