명예훼손
The judgment of the court below is reversed.
Defendant shall be punished by a fine of three million won.
The above fine shall not be paid by the defendant.
1. Summary of grounds for appeal;
A. Defendant (guilty part) and the misunderstanding of the legal doctrine did not have any speech that defames the victim as stated in each criminal facts found guilty by the lower court.
A family defendant made a statement as stated in the judgment of the court below.
Even if it is true, it is for the public interest as a true fact, so there is no illegality.
2) The sentence of the lower court (an amount of KRW 2.5 million) that was unfair in sentencing is too unreasonable.
B. According to the prosecutor (misunderstanding of the facts as to the acquittal portion) witness M and N’s statement in each court below’s original judgment, the court below fully recognized the Defendant’s false statement of the false fact that impairs the honor of the victim around 10:00 on August 12, 2013. However, the court below held that the Defendant made the aforementioned statement on the same date as the facts charged.
The judgment of the court below was pronounced not guilty on the grounds of insufficient evidence, and there was an error of law that affected the conclusion of the judgment by misunderstanding the facts (the prosecutor appealed the whole judgment of the court below, but dismissed the appeal as to the conviction on the first trial date). 2.
A. Judgment 1 on the Defendant’s misunderstanding of the facts and misapprehension of the legal principles) The lower court held that the testimony of the victim and witness on each criminal fact as indicated in the lower judgment is reliable.
Based on the judgment, this part of the charges was convicted.
Except in exceptional cases where maintaining the first deliberation judgment on the credibility of the statement made by the witness of the first instance trial is deemed considerably unfair, the appellate court should not reverse without permission the first deliberation judgment on the ground that the first deliberation judgment on the credibility of the statement made by the witness of the first instance trial differs from the appellate court's judgment (see Supreme Court Decision 2006Do4994, Nov. 24, 2006, etc.). Examining the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court below in light of the above legal principles, the above victim and witness.