정보통신망이용촉진및정보보호등에관한법률위반(명예훼손)교사
The defendant's appeal is dismissed.
1. Summary of grounds for appeal;
A. Although there is no credibility of each of the above statements made by H and I in the original judgment, the lower court recognized the credibility of each of the above statements, and convicted the Defendant of the facts charged in the instant case, which in so determining, the lower court erred by misapprehending the legal principles.
B. As indicated in the facts charged in this case, the Defendant’s sending e-mail to the employees of the business division on July 23, 2008 cannot be deemed as the act of defamation of this case. Even if G is deemed as the Defendant’s act of sending e-mail to the employees of the business division on August 13, 2008, the Defendant’s act of sending e-mail is deemed as the Defendant’s act of aiding and abetting the employees of the business division on or before August 13, 2008, the lower court convicted the Defendant of all the facts charged in this case, and thus, the lower court erred by misapprehending the legal doctrine.
2. Determination
A. 1) Determination on the assertion of mistake of facts: (a) In light of the content of the first instance judgment in relation to the relevant legal principles, the principle of court-oriented trials and the principle of direct examination; and (b) in light of the content of the first instance judgment and the evidence duly examined by the first instance court; or (c) in exceptional cases where it is deemed significantly unreasonable to maintain the first instance judgment on the credibility of the statement made by a witness of the first instance court by taking account of the results of the first instance examination and the results of additional evidence examination conducted by the time of closing argument in the appellate trial, the appellate court shall not reverse without permission the first instance judgment solely on the ground that the first instance judgment on the credibility of the statement made by a witness of the first instance is different from the appellate court’s judgment (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2009Do14409, Feb. 25, 2010).