명예훼손등
All appeals by the Defendants are dismissed.
1. Reasons for appeal (legal scenarios, unreasonable sentencing)
A. The part of the misapprehension of the legal principle that “worker was forced to retire,” and the part that “F is the connection of L churches, and there is friendship with K,” is merely merely an expression of opinion on the premise of a specific fact, or it is merely an extent to confirm the contents already disclosed, and thus, cannot be seen as a specific statement of false facts.
Even if the crime of defamation is established as a statement of false facts, it constitutes a ground for excluding illegality under Article 310 of the Criminal Act, since there is considerable reason to believe that the Defendants were true from the standpoint of the Defendants (public interest, such as employee welfare).
In addition, it does not interfere with the business activities of the company, even though the reputation of the company was inferred by expressing the above false facts, it does not interfere with business activities of the company.
B. The lower court’s sentence (a fine of KRW 1.8 million on Defendant A, and a fine of KRW 1.5 million on Defendant B) declared by the lower court on the Defendants is too unreasonable.
2. Determination
A. In the crime of defamation as to whether there was a statement of false facts, the term “statement of fact” in the crime of defamation as to whether there was a statement of false facts refers to a report or statement on the past or present facts, which is the time and space, and the contents of the statement can be proven by evidence. In determining whether a report or statement is a fact or an opinion, the determination ought to be made by taking into account the overall circumstances, such as the ordinary meaning and usage of the language, the possibility of proof, the context in which the given statement was used, and the social situation in which the expression was made (see Supreme Court Decision 2010Do17237, Sept. 2, 201).
Comprehensively taking account of the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court below, E, a corporation, etc., conducted a desired retirement on July 31, 2008.