명예훼손등
All judgment of the court below shall be reversed.
Defendant shall be punished by a fine of KRW 800,000.
The above fine shall not be paid by the defendant.
1. Summary of grounds for appeal;
A. misunderstanding of facts and misapprehension of the legal principle) defamation: The Defendant did not make the same speech as the statement No. 1 of the first instance judgment.
The defendant made the same remarks as the above entry.
Even if the performance is not recognized, the words such as the above mentioned are not likely to undermine the social value or evaluation of the victim.
2) Defluence: The Defendant did not have made the same remarks as the entries in the judgment of the second instance.
B. The punishment of the lower court (the first instance judgment: the fine of KRW 500,00,000; the fine of KRW 2: the fine of KRW 300,00) is too unreasonable.
2. Examination ex officio prior to the judgment on the grounds for appeal by the defendant.
The defendant filed an appeal against the judgment of the court below, and this court tried two appeals jointly. Each of the offenses of the judgment of the court below is concurrent offenses under the former part of Article 37 of the Criminal Act, and the judgment of the court below should be sentenced to one punishment pursuant to Article 38 (1) 2 of the Criminal Act. Thus, the judgment of the court below cannot be maintained.
Although there is a ground for ex officio reversal, the defendant's assertion of mistake and misunderstanding of legal principles is still subject to the judgment of this court, and this is examined.
3. Judgment on the misapprehension of facts and misapprehension of legal principles
A. Comprehensively taking account of the following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly admitted and investigated by the court below, the Defendant’s statement as described in the judgment of the first instance court is sufficiently recognized, and the statement as described in the judgment of the first instance court constitutes a content that lowers the social value or assessment of the victim, and thus, it does not accept the Defendant’s assertion of misunderstanding of facts and misapprehension of the legal principles.
① From the investigative agency to the court of the court below, the victim spent the time expenses from the investigative agency to the issue of customer and parking as above before the Defendant’s task is overworking on July 17, 2015.
With respect to this, the victim.