명예훼손
The prosecution of this case is dismissed.
1. The summary of the facts charged is that the Defendant, as the president of the C&A, made a petition stating the contents of “a petition for pressure management by the president of C&A” using a computer located in the office of the C&A at the end of May 2013 at the Daejeon-gu Daejeon-gu D 11th, stating that “a petition for pressure management by the president of C&A” (victim E) from the elevator, “ctv reading instructions”, “after visiting the headquarters to the outside and leading the employees,” and “a book book-keeping inspection”, “a book-to-day government of the wage rate of 2011, 4.1% by presenting 6.1% to the D., the Defendant distributed the above petition to the C&A office and the C&A office, the Anti-Corruption and Civil Rights Commission, the Ministry of Land, Infrastructure and Transport, the Ministry of Employment and Labor, the National Land Transport Committee, the National Assembly members’ office affiliated with the National Land Transport Committee, and G members’ office.
However, in fact, the victim did not instruct CCTV reading on the ground that the employee was not in his/her own personnel, and did not instruct him/her to conduct a book-keeping test without the consent of his/her employees, and there was no fact that the government on the rate of increase in wages in 2011 presented a false drum, leading him/her to the strike of the C&A.
Nevertheless, the defendant delivered the above contents to each agency and members of the National Assembly, thereby impairing the honor of the victim by openly pointing out false facts.
2. The above facts charged are the crimes falling under Article 307(2) of the Criminal Act, which cannot be prosecuted against the victim’s express intent under Article 312(2) of the Criminal Act.
According to the records, it can be recognized that the victim has withdrawn his/her wish to punish the defendant on April 29, 2014, which was after the public prosecution of this case was instituted. Thus, the public prosecution of this case is dismissed pursuant to Article 327 subparagraph 6 of the Criminal Procedure Act.