A. In light of the legal principle, the Defendant did not receive a return, even though the husband did not lend money to the victim and the G husband after the husband died. The above money included the husband’s death insurance money, donation money, and bank loans, which was decided through civil litigation. However, since G did not return the property under the husband’s name and did not pay the above money, it led to one person’s demonstration based on the inevitable facts, the crime of defamation is not established. Nevertheless, the lower court convicted the Defendant of the facts charged in this case. In so doing, the lower court erred by misapprehending the legal doctrine on defamation, thereby affecting the conclusion of the judgment.

B. In light of the overall sentencing conditions of the instant case, the lower court’s punishment (fine of KRW 300,000) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. As to the assertion of misapprehension of the legal doctrine, Article 307(1) of the Criminal Act provides that a person who defames another person by openly pointing out a “fact” shall be punished, and the case where a person defames another person by openly pointing out a false fact is punished is distinguished from Article 307(2) of the same Act. On the other hand, in order to constitute a crime of defamation, a specific fact must be indicated that the victim’s social value or evaluation is likely to be infringed. Whether an expression is defamation should be determined by objective evaluation in accordance with social norms of the expression (see Supreme Court Decision 2011Do1226, Mar. 27, 2014). In full view of all the following circumstances recognized by the evidence duly adopted and investigated by the court below, the Defendant constitutes a case where the Defendant scirlss the scirls containing the same content as the written facts of this case, or installed it by openly pointing out a fact, thereby impairing the victim’s reputation.