명예훼손
All the decisions of the first instance court are reversed.
The sentence against the accused shall be determined by a fine of KRW 3,00,000.
The defendant above.
1. Summary of grounds for appeal;
A. Defendant: Contributory misunderstanding of legal principles (as to the guilty part of the second judgment, this part of the facts charged is not specified to the extent sufficient to exercise Defendant’s right of defense, because the date and time of crime is too comprehensive and broad) and mistake of facts (as to the conviction part of the first and the second judgment of the first court, the Defendant did not all speaks indicated in the above facts of crime).
The prosecutor: misunderstanding of facts or misunderstanding of legal principles (the second judgment of the court of first instance, and according to the evidence submitted by the prosecutor, the defendant could fully recognize the defendant's injury to the victim E by making the statement as stated in each of the facts charged). 2. The judgment of this court
A. We examine ex officio the judgment and the prosecutor's grounds for appeal prior to the judgment on each of the grounds for appeal.
In addition, this Court has decided to consolidate each appeal case against the judgment of the first instance court, and the prosecutor applied for the amendment of an indictment with the purport that the part concerning each of the defamations on or before October 201 among the facts charged in the second instance judgment should be changed to the following facts constituting the crime, and this Court has permitted the amendment. Each of the facts constituting the crime and the crime of defamation committed by the second instance judgment as guilty should be sentenced to a single sentence within the scope of punishment subject to aggravated concurrent crimes in accordance with Article 38(1) of the Criminal Act, since the crime of defamation committed by the second instance judgment is related to concurrent crimes under the former part of Article 37 of the Criminal Act, and thus, the first instance judgment cannot be maintained any more due to the subsequent changes in circumstances.
However, despite the above reasons for ex officio destruction, the defendant's assertion such as mistake of facts is still subject to the judgment of this court, and this is examined.
(b) mistake of facts by the defendant;