정보통신망이용촉진및정보보호등에관한법률위반(명예훼손)
Of the judgment of the first instance, the guilty part of the judgment of the first instance and the acquittal part of the judgment of the first instance, the defamation of the victim Q.
1. Summary of the grounds for appeal (2014No922- Both appeals);
A. Prosecutor 1) misunderstanding of facts (A) 2012 Godan2941 Ga 201 Ga 201 Ga 201 Do 2941 Da Da, F and C have made a statement to the effect that “I will write an article that slanders the other side and receive money under the pretext of support payments, etc. in any one where there is a dispute over the church of the defendant,” and there is a letter that the defendant stated that I received money from DO, the defendant has made a false statement for the purpose of slandering the victim for his own interest.
Nevertheless, the lower court acquitted the Defendant on this part of the facts charged by misunderstanding the facts.
The issue of defamation related to AC's obligation against R is that there is no lending money to R. The defendant stated that there was no false perception since the defendant did not confirm such basic facts and published this part of this article without confirming such basic facts, and the above article was posted for personal benefit and defamation.
Nevertheless, the lower court acquitted the Defendant on this part of the facts charged by misunderstanding the facts.
A collection company, etc. of the defamation of the victim F illegally committed a violation of the BH church. In this regard, the defendant was called DaO (the title of the BH church's Doc Revolution). On the other hand, F legally dispatched the BH church to the temporary chairperson of the BH church according to the constitutional procedure of a religious order and lawfully entered the church for the disciplinary action of DoO, etc., therefore, F did not have committed a theft of imprisonment without prison labor due to unauthorized intrusion, damage to the property, and assault others.
Even if FJ assaulted on the part of the disputing party, F did not participate in it, and rather was assaulted on the part of the opposing party.
However, for the purpose of slandering F and his own interest, the Defendant published this part of this part with knowledge that it is false, and some of the legal evaluation contents are nothing more than ancillary parts.
Nevertheless, the court below erred by misapprehending the legal principles.