B. The case holding that although part of the contents of newspaper articles inserted by the defendant's information cannot be seen as having recognized and reported that the defendant was false facts, this part of the newspaper articles is guilty, since they are related to the crime of defamation and simple crimes of defamation by published materials which are found guilty, not guilty in the judgment below

Supreme Court Decision 4292 Form715 Decided June 8, 1960 (Summary 406)

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for not less than eight months.

However, the execution of the above punishment shall be suspended for one year from the date this judgment becomes final and conclusive.

A. Error of mistake

The defendant explained the relationship between the Lee Young-young and the defendant, who is the complainant, to the non-indicted 1, has no purpose of slandering as follows, and even if it is true or somewhat different from the truth, the court below erred by misunderstanding the facts, thereby affecting the conclusion of the judgment.

(1) The purpose of slandering

The reasons why the defendant explained the above contents to Non-Indicted 1 as seen in the above sub-paragraph (2) are as follows. After the defendant declared the cancellation of the exclusive contract with the Lee Young-young on June 30, 1990, the defendant declared the cancellation of the exclusive contract with the above Lee Young-young on July 26, 191, when the modernized French exhibition scheduled to be cancelled due to the disturbance of Lee Young-young, he entered the press community with an interest in the media, on July 26, 1991. On July 31, 191, when the same article was lost in the daily sports, the defendant did not request that the above contents be known among three and the non-indicted 1 contact with the telephone and did not request that the defendant inform him of the truth, and the defendant did not request that the above article be provided, despite the fact that the non-Indicted 1 provided the above article, and it did not cause any error that the defendant made a reply to the above request by dividing it with the content that he provided the article to the non-Indicted 1.

(2) Whether the Defendant was aware of the falsity of the facts explained to Nonindicted Party 1 and whether the Defendant was false or false, and the Defendant explained to Nonindicted Party 1, who was the father of Chosun Culture. In other words, (i) around March 190, 190, the amount of sales of the material amount of KRW 1,50 million was incurred from east EXE at the east 20 million, but only was paid KRW 30 million; (ii) the cost of the material amount that the victim had been said to have been said to have been the lender was incurred due to the failure to act as a sponsor for the first six months; (iii) the victim illegally acquired the Defendant’s material amount; and (iv) the content that the Defendant interfered with the Defendant’s exhibition that the said victim was expected to have been opened in the ditch, and even if there was any degree different from the truth, the lower court erred by misapprehending the fact that the Defendant was true, thereby making a mistake in determining the value of evidence, thereby having committed the crime under its judgment.

B. Legal principles

Even if the defendant talks about the false facts in a wooden position that defames the above Lee Young-young as in the judgment of the court below, as in the ruling of the court below, the non-indicted 1, who posted this article, is an artist belonging to the Ministry of Culture and Arts, who is an artist belonging to the Ministry of Culture and Arts, or who is capable of distinguishing the article from the article which is nothing more than anything else for the purpose of the sound development of the exclusive ownership of authors, and is fully responsible for the article. Thus, if the above article damages another person's reputation, the reporter or newspaper himself cannot be punished as the above crime, regardless of the fact that the reporter is liable for defamation by publication. However, the court below's finding the defendant as the crime of defamation by publication as the crime of defamation is erroneous in interpreting the subject of the act of defamation by publication, thereby affecting the conclusion of the judgment.

C. Unreasonable sentencing

In light of the fact that the defendant is the first offender, and the person who actually suffered damage due to the display and obstruction of the above Lee Young-young's work due to this case is the defendant, the sentence of the court below is too unreasonable.

2. Judgment of party members

A. Judgment on the misapprehension of legal principle

If a newspaper article damages another person's reputation, the defendant argued that the reporter or newspaper company who posted the article should not be punished for the crime of defamation by publication, apart from the fact that he or she bears the responsibility for the crime of defamation. However, as seen later, if the newspaper article provides the newspaper articles with false information for the purpose of slandering another person, the issue of whether the article is published on the newspaper site belongs to the internal authority of the newspaper company. However, as long as the article is published on the newspaper site, the publication of this article cannot be attributable to the act of the newspaper material provider, i.e., the informant who provided the above article article, and the defendant cannot escape from the liability for the crime of defamation by publication. Thus, this argument is without merit.

B. Determination of mistake of Fact

(1) Whether there was a purpose of slandering

The defendant alleged that the non-indicted 1 reported the fact that the article about the Lee Young-young to another newspaper was broken off by the defendant and asked the defendant to present related data, and that the defendant should be informed of the truth, and that there was no purpose to defame the above Lee Young-young, but the prosecutor's office, especially the evidence duly examined by the court below, had the defendant intentionally reported the newspaper and television to the public so that he could not engage in the work, so that the article about the Lee Young-young could be widely known to the public, and that there was sufficient difficulty in the operation of the ditch," but the defendant's assertion that the above newspaper and television could not be used to criticize the defendant's reputation and that there was no obstacle in the operation of the ditch. "It is necessary to accept that the defendant's assertion that the above newspaper and television did not contain any harm to the defendant's body and that there was no reason to criticize the defendant's oral testimony and that there was no harm to the operation of the ditch."

(2) Whether the above 4 matters explained by the defendant are false facts

(A) Sales proceeds from east EXE

피고인은 1990.3.24.부터 4.3.까지 일본동경에서 개최된 동경아트엑스포에 피고인의 작품 25점 528호(이난영이 별도 보관하던 작품 4점 포함)를 출품하여 그 전부를 공소외 허영중에게 판매하고, 귀국 후 위 이난영이 다시 일본으로 가서 위 판매대금을 일화로 받아와 한국에서 한화로 환전한 후 그중 3천만 원을 피고인에게 지불하면서 작품 전부의 판매대금이 8,300여만 원이라고 이야기 하고 이를 전제로 계산서를 작성하기는 하였으나, 피고인이 출품에 앞서 호당 10만엔 이하로 받아서는 안된다고 이야기하였고, 이난영이 인수증이나 보관증 또는 환전증서를 피고인에게 보이지 않은 점, 부산일보기자인 배태영에게 위 이난영이 판매대금으로 1억 8,000만 원을 받아왔다고 이야기한 점에 비추어 보면 위 작품판매대금은 적어도 금 1억 5천만 원은 상회할 것이고, 설령 위 판매대금이 위 이난영의 주장대로 금 8,300여만 원 정도라고 하여도 피고인으로서는 위 이난영이 판매대금이 1억 8천만 원이라고 이야기하는 것을 들었다는 공소외 배태영기자의 말을 듣고 판매대금이 적어도 1억 5천여만 원은 넘을 것이라는 생각에 공소외 1기자에게 그러한 취지로 말을 한 것이므로 피고인이 공소외 1기자에게 말한 것은 사실이거나 혹은 사실이라고 믿고 이야기한 것이라고 주장하나, 공판기록에 편철된 작품리스트사본(제689정), 수사기록에 편철된 정산서사본(제10-12정), 피고인의 출품작 명세서(제38정)의 각 기재 및 당심에서의 이난영의 진술을 종합하여 보면, 피고인이 위 동경아트엑스포에 출품한 작품은 모두 21점이고 거기에다가 화랑소유인 피고인 작품 4점을 보태어 총 25점이 출품되었는데, 피고인이 출품한 작품중 20점 및 화랑소유로 출품한 4점(100호 1점, 30호 1점, 12호 1점, 10호 1점) 등 합계 24점이 공소외 허영중에게 일괄판매되어 그 총판매대금이 금 26,500,000엔이었던 사실, 당시환율을 4.35로 잡아 환산한 금 115,275,000원 중 화랑소유작품 4점 대금 31,572,850원을 제외한 피고인 출품작품 20점의 판매대금은 금 83,702,150원으로 계산하여, 그중 절반인 금 41,860,750원을 피고인 몫으로 피고인과 위 이난영 사이에 확정한 후, 그 동안 피고인이 위 이난영으로부터 가불하여 간 금 12,257,750원을 공제하면 최종적으로 피고인 몫으로 돌아갈 판매대금은 대략 금 3,000만 원 정도로 계산하여 정산하였고, 이에 따라 피고인이 금 3,000만 원을 지급받은 사실을 각 인정할 수 있는바, 그렇다면 피고인도 피고인몫으로 분배될 피고인 출품작품의 총 판매대금이 한화로 금 8,300여 만 원 정도라는 것을 알고 이에 따라 정산까지 하였음에도, 이를 1억 5천만 원 상당이라고 공소외 1기자에게 말한 것은 허위의 사실을 말한 것이라고 보지않을 수 없고, 또한 피고인이 그 이후에 위 배태영기자로부터 위 이난영이 총판매대금이 금 1억 8천만 원에 이른다고 하더라는 말을 듣고서 판매대금이 1억 8천여 만 원에 이를 것이라고 확신하였으므로 허위라는 인식이 없었다는 취지의 주장에 관하여서도, 수사기록 제103정에 편철된 배태영기자가 쓴 1991. 7.29 부산일보기사에 의하면 오히려 피고인이 1억 8천만 원에 팔렸다고 말한 것으로 보도가 되어 있고, 공판기록 제338정에 편철된 공소부제기 이유고지서사본에도 피고인 스스로 위 배태영기자에게 그림 판매대금이 1억 5천만 원이라고 말한 것으로 되어 있는 데다가, 피고인이 원심에서 제출한 1992.1.18.자 탄원서(공판기록 제16-28정)에서 배 태영기자로부터 들은 경위를, 부산일보 기사를 읽어 보니 피고인이 작품판매대금이 1억 8천만 원이라고 발설한 것 같이 기사화가 되어 있어서 이를 피고인이 위 배태영기자에게 확인해 보니 작품대금이 1억 8천만 원이라고 말한 것은 이난영인데 피고인이 발설한 것 같이 오보되었다고 해명하였다고 주장하면서 자료로 배태영기자가 쓴 경위서라고 공판기록 제34정에 편철된 메모지를 제출하였으나, 위 부산일보기사가 보도된 날은 앞서 본 바와 같이 1991.7.29. 이고, 피고인이 조선일보기자인 공소외 1을 만나 판매대금이 1억 5천여 만 원에 이른다고 말을 한 날은 이틀 전인 같은 달 27. 이어서 피고인이 신문기사를 본 후 부산일보 배태영기자에게 확인하여 공소외 1에게 판매대금에 대하여 이야기하였다는 것은 시간상 맞지 않아 그 경위에 대한 변소가 합리성을 잃고 있는 점, 이난영은 위 배태영기자에게 피고인 주장과 같은 이야기를 한 사실이 없다고 일관하여 부인하고 있는 점 등에 비추어 볼 때 받아들이기 어렵다 할 것이다.

2. As to the material cost issue

At the time of concluding the contract on July 30, 198, the Defendant agreed to bear the cost of materials of the Defendant’s material. While the Defendant intended to specify it in a document, the Defendant asserts that “the emerculation entered into a contract as a manager and sponsor of the Defendant’s production and production of the work and production of the work,” it is included in the provision under Paragraph (2) of the emerculation Agreement, but it is not sufficient to specify it in the contract without doubt as an oral offer.

In full view of the above statement of material costs and statements made by the Defendant on behalf of the Defendant during the latest 6-month period from the date of the above-mentioned trial, it is difficult to conclude that the Defendant had paid the above-mentioned material costs to the effect that the Defendant would not use the above-mentioned material costs for the first time after the above-mentioned trial, and that the Defendant would not use the above-mentioned material costs for the first time after the latest 6-month period from the date of the above-mentioned trial, and that the Defendant would not use the above-mentioned material costs for the first time after the latest 6-month period from the date of the above-mentioned trial, and that the Defendant would not use the above-mentioned material costs for the first time after the latest 6-month period from the date of the above-mentioned trial, and that the Defendant would have paid the above-mentioned material costs for the first time after the latest 6-month period from the date of the above-mentioned trial, and that the Defendant would not use the remaining material costs for the first time after the late 1989 agreement.

3. As to the fraud of the work

Considering that the Defendant did not know that Nonindicted Party 1 obtained it by deception, it was merely an article by referring to the part of the embezzlement of the Defendant’s claim, which is the cause of the Defendant’s complaint. The above 1st century abused the exclusive contract system, and even if the Defendant sold it at a price below or above, it would be reasonable to calculate and calculate it at an agreement price. However, this thropic has been sold at a price less than half of the agreement price whenever the work is exhibited, and the amount equivalent to the sales price of the Defendant’s work to be distributed at a price less than 1/3 of the actual sales price. In addition, it is sufficiently possible to find that the Defendant, who was aware of the above 1st of the fact that the Defendant had been negligent in selling the work at the exhibition, purchased the work that was not sold at the price of less than 1/3 of the above 6th of the total sale price, and then, it is difficult to see that the Defendant had made an exclusive disclosure of the Defendant’s work to Nonindicted Party 1 at the price 6.

4. Whether the immigration control has interfered with the exhibition of the defendant;

Although the court below decided that this ruling did not interfere with the defendant's holding of exhibitions in other ditches intentionally, the court below held that each entry in the notice of March 8, 1991 which was bound in 63 of the trial records, each entry in the notice of January 13, 192 which was bound in 412, and each entry of the defendant, which was recorded in the notice of January 13, 192, shall be taken into account, after the occurrence of the separation between the defendant and the Lee Young-young and the defendant, the notice of termination of exclusive contract was issued on June 15, 190 and then the defendant issued the notice of the above cancellation of the exclusive contract until August 6, 191, 191, and it would be impossible to find that the above Lee Young-young did not have any problem with the law of experience if the above exclusive contract was held by the defendant and the above Park Young-young to the above person for continuing to hold the exhibition. However, it would be impossible to find that the above agreement had any problem with the defendant Lee Young-young-young to be cancelled.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, although there is no reason to believe that there is a misapprehension of the legal principles of the defendant and that there is a part of the purpose of slander, the sales proceeds, and the part of the fraud, the part of the material cost and the part of the part of the charge of mistake of facts are reasonable, and the judgment of the court below which found the defendant guilty also has an error of law that affected the conclusion of the judgment by misunderstanding the facts

Therefore, a party member shall reverse the judgment of the court below under Article 364(6) of the Criminal Procedure Act without considering the remaining grounds for appeal on unfair sentencing, and shall render a new decision after hearing as follows.

1. Statements in part, consistent with the facts in the judgment of the defendant, among the second trial records in the original judgment;

1. Statement consistent with the facts in the judgment of the chief of a witness among the third trial records in the original judgment;

1. Each statement that conforms to the facts in the judgment of the court below in the fourth trial record of the court below's decision, Kim Tae and Lee Lee-young;

1. Each statement that conforms to the facts indicated in the judgment among the statements concerning the keeping of the prosecutor's report and Kim Tae-Un;

1. Each statement that conforms to the facts stated in the judgment among the written statements in Nonindicted Party 1 and the heading

1. Each entry into the public prosecution book, a copy of the reasons for filing the public prosecution bound in the public trial records (No. 338), the defendant's written application (No. 16-28), a copy of the exclusive contract (No. 29), a copy of the written judgment (No. 199-213), a copy of the work list (No. 15), and a copy of the work list which are bound in the investigation records;

Articles 309(2) and (1), and 307(2) of the Criminal Act

2. Suspension of execution;

Article 62(1) of the Criminal Act (the first offender, motive for crime, etc.)

Judges Tae-tae (Presiding Judge)