명예훼손
The judgment of the court below is reversed.
The sentence of sentence shall be suspended for the defendant.
1. Summary of grounds for appeal;
A. Defendant 1’s assertion of misunderstanding of the facts or misapprehension of the legal doctrine) Defendant’s statement in the upper end, No. 7 No. 1 of the crime sight table, is merely a somewhat exaggerated expression, and thus does not constitute “a statement of false facts” in the crime of defamation.
B) The Defendant’s remarks indicated in No. 9 No. 9 per annum of the crime sight list do not constitute a crime of defamation because they are merely merely an expression of opinion, and even if the above remarks constitute a statement of fact, they do not constitute a “statement of false facts” of the crime of defamation by merely a somewhat exaggerated expression.
2) Even if each crime in the judgment of the court below is found guilty, in light of the fact that the defendant committed each of the above crimes in the course of endeavoring to improve the treatment of disabled workers, etc., the punishment (amounting to KRW 300,000) sentenced by the court below is too unreasonable.
B. According to the evidence submitted by the prosecutor, prosecutor 1) assertion of misunderstanding of facts (not guilty part in the judgment below), this part of the facts charged is found guilty.
Nevertheless, the lower court found the Defendant not guilty of this part of the facts charged because it erred in interpreting evidence in determining whether to recognize falsity.
Therefore, the court below erred by misapprehending the facts and affecting the conclusion of the judgment.
2) In light of the fact that the Defendant’s wrongful assertion of sentencing violates the victim’s reputation by pointing out false facts, which resulted in a significant obstacle to the operation of the victim’s company, and that the damage recovery measures have not been properly taken up up to the trial, etc., the sentence imposed by the lower court is too uneasible and unfair.
2. Determination
A. In light of the evidence duly adopted and examined by the lower court, the Defendant suffered damage on November 12, 2014.