명예훼손
The judgment below
The part against the defendant shall be reversed.
The defendant shall be innocent.
1. The summary of the grounds for appeal: (a) Notwithstanding the fact that there was such a written indictment as to the victim at the time that there was a true fact, the lower court erred by misapprehending this part of the facts, thereby finding the Defendant guilty.
(2) The court below erred by misapprehending the legal principles as to the public performance, and thereby finding the Defendant guilty, despite the fact that the Defendant made a statement to A as described in the facts charged, although there is a long-term relationship between the Defendant and a long-term relationship, and the conversation was divided only when it comes to divide such dialogue, and thus does not openly impair the honor of the victim.
(In fact-finding and misunderstanding of legal principles) 2. Judgment
A. Prior to the judgment on the grounds for appeal by the defendant's ex officio, the prosecutor examined the applicable provisions of law to the purport that the defendant's assertion of mistake was partially accepted in the trial, and applied for the amendment of indictment to the effect that "Article 307 (1) of the Criminal Act" is "Article 307 (2) of the Criminal Act", and "false facts" among the facts charged in the case was changed to "fact", and the judgment of the court was changed to the subject of the judgment by permitting it. Therefore, the judgment of the court below is no longer maintained in this respect.
However, despite the above reasons for ex officio reversal, the defendant's remaining assertion of misunderstanding of facts and misapprehension of legal principles is still subject to the judgment of this court, and this is examined below.
B. Whether the crime of defamation was established (1) Even though the Defendant did not have a divorce on the street in the G apartment complex in Young-gu, Young-gu, Young-gu, Young-gu, Gidong-gu, Gidong-gu around 17:00 on July 3, 2012, the Defendant injured the victim’s reputation by publicly alleging that “HN’s parents did not actually have a divorce, but only because HN’s parents did not have a divorce, she would have been subject to the divorce.”
(ii).