beta
(영문) 대구지방법원 2017.12.14 2017노2603

명예훼손

Text

The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

Reasons

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. The Defendant made a statement to the effect that the misunderstanding of facts D is in close relation with E, and the Defendant made a statement to the instant facts charged in the course of explaining that the Defendant could not have friendly political inclinations with E, and did not have any intention to impair the honor of the victim.

Nevertheless, the court below found the defendant guilty of the facts charged of this case. The court below erred by misunderstanding facts and affecting the conclusion of the judgment.

B. The punishment sentenced by the lower court (2 million won) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. 1) The lower court also asserted the same purport in the lower court’s judgment, and the lower court, based on the following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly admitted and investigated, i.e., (i) the Defendant and the Defendant did not have any personal or friendship relationship with the victim in the instant case; (ii) the Defendant and D came to know of the Internet SNS activities (Cheong Mangio Kao Kao Kao Kao Ma; and (iii) the Defendant filed a complaint against D on the grounds that the comments written by the previous D were written.

As mentioned above, D did not have any way to see that it did not spread the content of the instant statement for the Defendant to any other person; and 3rd, E, the victim’s wife, also became aware of each other through the SNS activities. As such, D did not have any relationship with the Defendant on behalf of the victim with the Defendant for the victim without expressing the content of the instant statement to a third party (it cannot be inferred solely on the ground that D and E were at the time at the time, or that the political inclination between D and E was similar (it cannot be inferred from the fact that the Defendant was at the same time at the time, or that the political inclination between the two was similar). 4) In fact, D’s remarks from the actual Defendant, other than the victim’s wife, are also many E in addition to E.