명예훼손
The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.
1. The main issue of the grounds of appeal is whether the crime of defamation depends on the nature and nature of the crime of defamation. The court below acknowledged the fact that the complainant had not been examined as a witness, and the defendant's telephone conversations did not have any special relationship with F to the extent that it should be maintained and protected. Thus, the court below erred by misapprehending the legal principles as to the public performance, and by misapprehending the legal principles.
2. Determination
A. The summary of the facts charged in the instant case was raised in the trial by the prosecution, and the defendant added J to the other party who publicly stated the facts, and the defendant stated that "E and Emburcers F shall be in an internal relationship. F shall be informed from time to time," and the defendant applied for amendments to the indictment added to the facts charged in the instant case, but this Tribunal rejected it on the grounds of the defendant's right of defense.
On July 2012, the Defendant, despite the fact that the Defendant’s husband E and the Victim F were not in an internal relationship between the Defendant’s husband E and the Victim F, was phoneed to H, an employee of the art industry, who is the husband of the Defendant’s pro-Japanese G, and damaged the victim’s reputation by openly pointing out false facts.
B. The lower court’s judgment, based on the evidence adopted and examined by the lower court, presumed that the husband E and the complainant were suspected of having an internal relationship, and that the Defendant called to H with E and E in order to verify the fact on July 2012 in order to verify the facts, and H thereafter called the Defendant to a third party, except where the Defendant and E were to be informed of the telephone at the wind where the Defendant and E were well known from E.