(b) Defamation in publications;

(c) Attempted crimes;

2016 Highest 4837 (Joints) d. Confessions

Seoul Residence

2. A. B (650128 - 1)

Residence Nam-si

3. A. (c) C (611223 - 1)

Incheon Residence

4.(c) D (59021 - 1)

Seoul Residence

5. E (540403 - 1)

Seoul Residence

Law Firm 00 Attorney Lee In-bok (for defendant A and B)

Attorney Park Im-soo (for defendant A and B)

Attorney Lee In-bok, for defendant A and B)

Law Firm 00, Attorneys Lee 00, 00, HyO (Defendant C)

(n)

Law Firm 00, Attorneys Yellow 00 (for defendant C)

Law Firm 00, Attorneys Lee 00 (for defendant C)

Attorney Park Do-young (for defendant D)

Law Firm 00, Attorneys Yoon 00, WhiteO (Defendant E)

The summary of this judgment against the Defendants is published.

“2015 Highest 4883

【Commencement of Case】

On May 22, 2013, the Prosecutor General and the president of the golf course located within the Macheon-si, Sincheon-si. At the latest, Defendant A had a physical contact with the above golf course employees, including Defendant A, who was an employee of the above golf course, and Defendant A, who was found to be about 30 minutes in the golf course’s dormitory at around 10 minutes, in order to satisfy or resign Defendant A, who was in the above golf course at the latest, at around May 22, 2013. At around May 23, 2013, the contents of the instant case became known to the golf course employees by engaging in such physical contacts as putting his shoulder on the shoulder of Defendant A or her head.

From around 1 year to 2014, the above golf course employees formed a labor union with a complaint against tension management and frequent round-out, etc. according to the instructions of A, and thereafter they began to collect the case from A employees without permission. In the process, as the above golf course employees, E, a representative director of the above golf course, who was the above golf course employees at the time when the above golf course employees at the time when the above golf course employees, could talk about the instant case, and the fact that this case was being discussed was being discussed in the labor union.

Accordingly, on September 2014, Defendant A, his father, who was working in the above golf course, told Defendant B of the contents of the instant case through another person, and notified Defendant B of the contents of the instant case for the first time. Defendant B, around September 22, 2014, told Defendant B of the horses that Defendant A’s dormitory room room room box of Defendant A, who was working in the instant case, could not go beyond the said match, and that Defendant B would not go beyond the said match, and would not go against the future issues of the instant case.

Meanwhile, around July 2013, Defendant C, an investigator of the prosecution, was investing an amount of 7 billion won from A to B, and was awarded a contract for the former 00 golf range, which is the city of friendliness, and was disputing each other. Defendant D, who is a driver of E and A, known at the end of September 2014, shall hear the instant case from the former △△△△△△, and at the time of ○○○○’s 00 public prosecutorial office’s sexual intercourse with the president of the National Assembly prior to the ○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○ case, and shall be deemed to have been exposed to the above Defendant 1’s sexual intercourse with the former △△△△○ case.

[Criminal Facts]

1. Defendant C and D’s attempted attack

At the beginning of October 2014, Defendant C knows the content of this case to Defendant C through Defendant D, and is involved in this case. Defendant D’s “A” around October 16, 2014, the same means that Defendant D continues to engage in a telephone call, so it should be noted that “A shall be given a prompt call,” and that human beings shall be instructed to “I am fright,” and that it should be delivered to Defendant C’s horses to Defendant C to the effect that “I am fright to use it in this case,” and that “I am fright to use it in this case,” and that I am fright to 9 billion won, and that I am am fright to use it in this case, and that I am fright to ask Defendant C to leave the bar on October 22, 2014.”

As a result, the Defendants conspired in collusion with A and attempted to acquire property profits equivalent to 4 billion won by acquiring the shares of the old 0 billion driving range equivalent to 12 billion won in the market price from A in excess of 8 billion won, and attempted to acquire property profits equivalent to 4 billion won.

2. Defendant C, B, and A’s accusation

While Defendant C and B received the draft of the written statement stating the particulars of the instant case from Defendant A around the beginning of October 2014, Defendant C and B came to know of the following facts: (a) at the time of the occurrence of the instant case’s entry into the draft written statement, it is possible before June 19, 2013, the date of the occurrence of the instant case’s complaint, which is the date of abolition of the victim’s complaint; and (b) in such a case, one year has passed since the victim’s complaint was still applied in the instant case, and thus, even if the date of the instant case’s complaint was filed as an indecent act, it cannot be punished even if the victim’s complaint was filed as an indecent act; (c) even after June 19, 2013, the said draft written statement stated only to the extent that Defendant A’s shoulder was brought about, and thus, whether the instant case’s act constitutes a indecent act by force.

Accordingly, Defendant C began to accurately verify the date of the instant case through Defendant A and E, etc. around October 2014. From E, Defendant C was aware of the fact that the instant case was likely to occur prior to June 19, 2013, which is the date on which the instant case was abolished, on the grounds that Defendant C was aware of the fact that “the date of the instant case was the date on which the instant case occurred, June 14, 2013,” and that “the date of the instant case was June 18, 2013.”

Nevertheless, around October 2014, Defendant C and B can punish Defendant A as to whether the date of occurrence of the instant case should be specified, and to what extent they did not have, enter the extent to which they kisck kisc, and write that they had kisc kisc kisc, and on October 22, 2014, Defendant C and B sent Defendant A a false statement to Defendant B, which was written on June 22, 2013, with Defendant C’s 2’s explanation that the kisc kisc kisc kisc kisc kisc kisc kisc kisc kisc kisc kisc kisc kisc kisc kisc kisc kisc kisc kisc kisc kisc kisc kisc kisc kisc kisc kisc us.

Defendant A and B submitted a false complaint (hereinafter referred to as “the complaint of this case”) at the 2nd office of the Gyeonggi Provincial Police Agency located in Kuo-dong, Kuo-dong on November 11, 2014, to employees under the jurisdiction of the above National Police Agency, and Defendant A stated to the effect that “the former Prosecutor General and the president of the Dopo-dong golf course, who are the police officer belonging to the above National Police Agency, were sexually sexually indecent acts, such as kiding and kiding kids,” on the same day, on June 22, 2013, Defendant A and the president of the Dopo-dong, who are the police officer belonging to the above National Police Agency, was sexually indecent acts.”

However, in fact, the date of occurrence of the instant case had both 00, the studio of Defendant A and his girl, left the dormitory, and stayed in the dormitory. The Kim △△△△, the studio of Defendant A, was on the leave of absence, and he was around May 22, 2013, on the day when the 1studio was handed down at the 000 golf course restaurant, and on May 22, 2013, the day when the 1studio was handed down. The fact that the 1studio of Defendant A, who was the studio of Defendant A, was on the studio and head, was on the studio of Defendant A, did not have any fact that the she kid on the studio

As a result, the Defendants conspired with the intent of having the street be subject to criminal punishment. 3. Defamation of Defendant B’s publications

Defendant B submitted a false complaint as described in paragraph (2) around November 11, 2013 to an investigative agency, and had an mind to defame Defendant B by disclosing this fact to the press.

On November 11, 2013, Defendant B submitted the instant written complaint to the effect that, “I wish to kill this person only once, I asked to do so, interview with the reporters and persons belonging to the Yonhap News who will take care of his employee, and “Indecent act, such as sexual intercourse, such as sexual intercourse, which would be forced to be boomed in the dormitory of the golf course in Macheon-si, Macheon-si, the former president of the prosecution," and issuance of the written complaint to the said reporters to the effect that “I want to kill this person only once.”

However, as described in paragraph (2) above, the date of occurrence of this case and the part that Defendant B her kisk on A’s view was false and operated in collusion with Defendant C and A.

After all, on November 12, 2014, the father of Eul (A) on the 12th day of the 12th day of the 12th day of the 2014 Yonhap News and the his father argued that he sexually committed an indecent act, such as having a woman left a shower in the dormitory of the golf course in June 22 of the 2016th day of the 12th day of the 2016th day of the 2016th day of the 2016th day of the 2014, and forced a number of media companies to publish an article containing contents and report the contents of his complaint on A in detail on the basis of the defendant's statement.

As a result, Defendant B damaged Defendant B’s honor by openly pointing out false facts by means of publication such as newspapers with a view to slandering A.

2016 Highest 4837,

C On October 10, 2014, at the beginning, 100 golf course D, which is a driver of the 00 golf course located within the area of Mapocheon-si and at the beginning of 10,000, "C knows the content of the case and is involved in this depth." The same is applicable to D around October 16, 2014 because C is the same as it makes it possible to receive only the principal and reduce the generation of it (A), and it is necessary to give C a more than 00 billion won of the weather range than 100,000,000,000 won to C, and it is necessary to inform C of the fact that it is difficult to use the above 90,000,000,000 won as it is, and D, which is no longer than 10,000,000 won of the weather range (the same shall apply to C, 200,000 won of the case.)

On the other hand, the defendant, who is the representative director of the above golf course, who had become fired due to the operation of the golf course at that time, stated that C in telephone conversations with C, intended to pressure the press by spreading the case to the media on October 15, 2014, and as to this, "No matter exists later," Do and Do and Do and Do, I would like to know "I would like to ask C to the effect that "I would like to answer it," "I would like to ask C's Do and Do and I would like to ask "I would like to answer it," "I would like to answer it," "I would like to know about the specific contents of the "I would like to put it out," "I would like to put it out," "I would like to put it out," and "I would like to put it out," "I would like to put it out," and "I would like to put it out," "I would like to be able to put it out to the manager."

As a result, C and D attempted to take off the amount of unsound property from A, but A refused the above demand, thereby making it impossible for the Defendant to do so, and the Defendant aided and abetted the crime of C and D by the above method.

2. Determination

A. Determination as to the assertion that the evidence submitted by the prosecutor is inadmissible

1) Relevant matters, such as a list of the current status of service and a list of free service (Defendant 1 and 2 defense counsel's assertion)

Each statement of past position in the evidence list 112 and 113 (referred to only the sequences 112 and 113, hereinafter referred to as "the list") is printed out from the date of the current status of service (2013 daily probation) which is a seized object voluntarily produced by static 00 under Article 218 of the Criminal Procedure Act. The evidence is admissible as there is no evidence to deem that the contents are changed due to compilation, etc.

The work marks Nos. 10, 125, and 148 are printed out or copied from the work files, which are the seized articles that have already been voluntarily produced by the holder pursuant to Article 218 of the Criminal Procedure Act. The admissibility of evidence is recognized as having been identical to the originals by means of the evidence, Kim Jong-young, this court statement, and written confirmation (No. 120). There is no evidence to deem that the contents were changed by editing, etc.

Nos. 7, 23, and 128 (Nos. 7, 23, and 128) are admissible as evidence by a copy of the work pocket book prepared by Defendant D, which is the original author, by the Defendant D’s testimony (see Article 313(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act).

In light of the developments revealed in this case, it cannot be deemed that the printing force of Nos. 11, 14, 94, and 102 in each of the instant case constitutes either a written ordinary document which is naturally admissible under Article 315 of the Criminal Procedure Act, or a document prepared under the circumstances that make it possible to credit, which is a document that is naturally admissible under Article 315 of the Criminal Procedure Act. However, Nos. 94 and 102 agreed to be used as evidence as a document submitted by the Defendant A, etc., and Nos. 11 and 14 are confirmed that it was a copy of those things identical thereto. Thus, it may be used as evidence.

On the other hand, with respect to the analysis chart such as Nos. 9, 33, 146, 147, 157, 158, and 159, the copy of the current status of each root, the defendant's online trading records, 5, and the current status of service in June, there is no evidence verifying the presenter (No. 9, 33, 157, 158, 159), and there is no evidence to confirm the identity, etc. with the original, and thus, it is impossible to recognize admissibility of evidence.

2) Regarding recording files (Nos. 162 - 1 through 18, 2016 order 4837 No. 1666-1 through 18, 1 through 3, and 5 defense counsel)

In light of the nature of electronic media, such as a file recording the contents of conversation, there is no signature or seal of an originator or statementer, and in cases where the content of the conversation is an original recording or a copy reproduced from the original without any artificial adaptation, taking into account the risk of editing and operation by the recorder’s intent or specific technology, it shall be proved that it is a copy of the original without any original recording, such as editing in the duplication process, and where there is no such proof, it shall not be readily admitted as evidence (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 2006Do8869, Mar. 15, 2007; 2012Do7461, Sept. 13, 2012). Moreover, the fact that the recording file submitted as evidence is an original recording or a copy of the original without any artificial editing, such as the creation and delivery of the recording file or copying of the original, 201Da74615, Sept. 13, 2012.

Each of the above recording files constitutes a copy of the files recovered from a computer located in the office (the dispute over whether they were jointly operated with Defendant C) in which the former 00 golf practice range was actually operated. According to the Supreme Prosecutors' Office' appraisal results, each of the above recording files was created between November 24, 2014: 13: 47: 10: 13: 51: 45 on the same day from November 24, 2014; 41: 51: 45 on the same day; NA e-mail was downloaded in a lump sum at the time during which the NA e-mail was avoided; and Defendant D and E, including Defendant C, who recorded the results of this court verification, recognize that each of the above recording files is a duplicate of the original contents; thus, it can be admitted as evidence.

B. Determination as to Defendant C and D’s attempted attack (Article 2015 Highest 4883 charges No. 1)

1) Intimidation as a means of the crime of intimidation refers to notifying a threat of harm that is likely to be fluent to the extent that it limits the freedom of decision-making or obstructs the freedom of decision-making. The threat of harm is sufficient if it does not require the method of expression and has the other party recognize that it would cause harm and injury to the other party by language or fluence. Even if the notice of harm and injury is used as a means of realizing legitimate rights, if the method of the present means of action exceeds the permissible level or scope under the social norms, it shall be deemed that the implementation of the crime of threat is commenced. Whether certain acts in this context exceed the permissible level or scope under the social norms should be determined by comprehensively taking into account the subjective and objective aspects of the act, i.e., the purpose and method selected (see Supreme Court Decision 94Do2422, Mar. 10, 1995, etc.).

According to the prosecutor's office and this court's statement in the prosecutor's office and this court, the prosecutor's statement about the defendant D, each recording (Nos. 35, 36, 38, 42), and voice files (No. 162-1 through 7). As stated in this part of the facts charged, if the defendant C goes through or instructs the defendant D to do so and if it does not exceed the shares of the former 00 golf driving range, it can be sufficiently recognized that the above facts of the case against the defendant A were sufficiently recognized as if the contents of the case against the defendant C were used to damage the media, and even if the defendant C has a certain share in the driving range of the former 00 driving range, in light of the content, degree, and means of the harm and injury notified, this constitutes intimidation for the crime of conflict.

2 ) 나아가 위 피고인들이 이 부분 공소사실 기재와 같이 가로부터 시가 120억 상당 의 구00 골프연습장 지분을 80억 원에 인수하여 그 차액인 40억 원 상당의 재산상 이 득을 취득하려고 하였는지 , 즉 이에 대한 불법영득의사가 있었는지에 관하여 보건대 , 이 부분 공소사실은 가가 구00 골프연습장에 대한 지분 전부를 소유하고 있는 것을 전제로 하는데 , 기록에 의하여 인정되는 다음과 같은 사정들 , 즉 ① 피고인 C는 경매 중인 구00 골프연습장을 경락받아 복잡한 권리관계를 정리한 후 재매각하여 시세차익 을 얻기로 하는 내용의 사업계획을 세우고 , 2013 . 4 . 19 . 지인인 조□□과 함께 ㈜엠 00를 설립한 후 , ㈜엠00 명의로 구00 골프연습장을 경락받은 점 [ 따라서 구00 골프 연습장의 지분이라는 것은 실제 엠OO에 대한 지분이다 . ㈜엠OO는 이후 ㈜구00 골 프클럽으로 상호가 변경되었다 . 이하 ' ( 주 ) 엠OO ' 라 한다 ] , ② ㈜엠00 설립 당시 조□□ 은 배우자인 김○○ 명의로 35 % , 후배인 김▽▽ 명의로 15 % 지분을 , 피고인 C는 배우 자인 모00 명의로 30 % , 위 김▽▽ 명의로 20 % 지분을 각 보유하고 , 위 김소가 대 표이사가 되었는데 , 같은 해 7월 경 가가 구00 골프연습장 인수에 필요한 자금 일부 를 투자하기로 하면서 피고인 C는 모00 명의의 지분 30 % 와 김▽▽ 명의의 지분 35 % 중 20 % 분할하여 가가 지정하는 대로 가의 가족들 앞으로 주식명의를 변경하여 준 점 , ③ 가는 2013 . 11 . 1 . 경 조□□이 투자한 원금을 모두 반환하고 그가 가지고 있던 나머 지 주식도 모두 자신이 인수하였으므로 , 구00 골프연습장 지분은 모두 자신의 것이라 고 주장하는 반면 , 피고인 C는 위와 같이 가 측에 이전된 지분은 가의 구00 골프연습 장 인수자금 투자에 따라 담보 명목이고 , 가의 투자로 위 사업에서 빠지게 되는 조미 □에게 가가 투자원금을 반환하기로 한 것이며 , 조□□은 투자원금을 회수하면서 남아 있는 그의 지분에 대한 권한 일체를 자신에게 위임하면서 이후 사업 목적대로 구00 골프연습장을 재매각하여 얻는 수익금 중 50 % 를 조□□에게 지급하기로 하였다고 주 장하는데 , 구00 골프연습장 인수와 관련하여 초기 투자과정에서 상당한 위험을 부담 하였던 조□□이 상당한 이익이 기대되는 상황에서 투자원금만 받고 자신의 지분 전체 를 양도하였다고 보기 어렵고 , 가가 자신의 가족 명의로 이전된 위 지분의 대가를 피 고인 C에게 지급하였다고 볼 자료도 분명하지 않은 점 등에 비추어 피고인 C 주장이 더 설득력이 있어 보이고 , 이를 반박할 만한 자료는 없는 점 , ④ 나아가 2013 . 11 . 25 . 경에 조□□이 김 , 김▽▽ 명의로 보유하고 있던 주식에 대한 백지 주식양도양수 계약서가 작성되어 있었던 것으로 보이므로 , 가 주장처럼 조□□에게 투자원금을 모두 지급하고 그의 주식을 모두 인수하였다면 그 때부터는 조□□ 측 지분이 없어야 할 것 인데도 , 2014 . 5 . 8 . 개최된 ㈜엠OO의 임시주주총회 회의록에는 김소 , 김▽▽ 지분 ( 50 % ) 이 그대로 표기되어 있는 점 , ⑤ 또한 ㈜엠00의 세무기장을 담당했던 최▽▽은 관련 사건의 증인으로 출석하여 , 2014 . 9 . 당시 ㈜엠00의 지분은 가와 피고인 C 측이 각 50 % 씩 보유하고 있었다고 일관되게 증언하고 있는 점 , ⑥ 이후 가가 ㈜엠00의 지 분을 추가로 인수하였다고 볼 자료도 없는 점 등에 비추어 2014 . 10 . 또는 같은 해 11 월 경 피고인 C가 구00 골프연습장 지분 중 50 % 상당을 가지고 있었다고 볼 수 있 어 , 비록 앞서 본 바와 같이 위 피고인들이 구00 골프연습장 지분 양도와 관련하여 가를 협박하였다고 하더라도 , 위 피고인들이 그로 인하여 40억 원 상당의 재산상 이득 을 얻으려고 하였다는 사실은 인정하기 어렵고 , 달리 검사가 제출한 증거만으로 이를 인정하기 부족하다 .

C. Determination as to Defendant A, B, and C’s non-prosecution (Article 2015 Highest 4883 Criminal facts2)

1) Relevant legal principles

The crime of false accusation is established when the reported fact goes against this objective truth with the intention of having another person subject to criminal punishment or disciplinary disposition. Therefore, the requirement of false accusation against this objective fact requires positive proof. The mere passive proof that the authenticity of the reported fact cannot be recognized is a false fact that goes against the objective truth, and thus the establishment of the crime of false accusation cannot be recognized (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2003Do5114, Jan. 27, 2004). In addition, even if the reported fact goes against the objective fact, if the existence of a false accusation is not recognized, the intention against the accusation is nonexistent, and if the contents of the accusation are not false, but rather exaggerated, based on the fact, it does not constitute an offense of false accusation (see Supreme Court Decision 2002Do53939, Jan. 24, 2003).

On the other hand, in a case where a complainant stated in a complaint a suspicion that he/she had been aware of the subjective intention of the accused on the basis of true objective facts, if there are reasonable grounds for doubt in light of the position of the general public, not a legal expert, it shall not be readily concluded that there was an intentional negligence on the part of the complainant, just because the suspicion was found not true later than that of the suspicion (see Supreme Court Decision 95Do2998, Mar. 26, 1996, etc.).

2) In full view of the following circumstances acknowledged by the record in light of the foregoing legal doctrine, it is difficult to readily conclude that the contents of the instant complaint are false facts solely based on the evidence submitted by the prosecutor, and even if some content of the snow age contravenes objective facts, it is unreasonable to somewhat exaggeration the circumstance, and further, it is difficult to recognize Defendant A and B as having a criminal intention.

① The prosecutor specified the date of occurrence of the instant case as the date of May 22, 2013, and asserted that the Defendants stated false facts on June 22, 2013 of the specific date of occurrence of the instant case in the accusation, based on which the Defendants submitted a letter of fact on May 2013, 200 golf courses as evidence, such as the No. 1336, No. 146, No. 1466, No. 2000, No. 2000, No. 2000, No. 200666, No. 200, No. 3066, No. 3066, No.

First, according to the above list 10, Kim Jong-soo's statement, it cannot be readily concluded that the contents of the list are consistent with the actual working days of employees. The number of calendars Nos. 13, 112, and 113 are different in the form of preparation and entry, and it is difficult to believe that the number of calendars No. 10, 200, 300, 400, 1500, 1500, 1500, 15000, 15000, 15000,0000,0000,0000,0000,000,0000,0000,0000,0000,000,0000,000,000,0000,000,000,000,000,000,000,00).

② 오히려 , 피고인 A은 포000 골프장에서 2013 . 6 . 30 . 퇴사하였는데 , 위 피고인과 같은 날 퇴사한 김○○는 이 법정에서 ' 퇴사하기 일주일에서 길어야 열흘 안에 이 사 건 있었고 , 그 전에 A이 퇴직한다는 이야기가 있었는데 , 프론트 봐줄 사람이 없어 A이 9월까지 더 봐주기로 하였다가 이 사건이 있고 , 바로 그만둔 것으로 기억한다 ' 고 진술 한 점 , 증인 표종관도 이 법정에서 ' 이 사건이 있은 후 A이 한동안 근무했던 것 같지 는 않고 , 조금 , 얼마 안 있다 그만 둔 것 같다 ' 고 진술하였고 , 증인 김□□도 ' 이 사건 이 있던 날 즈음에 피고인 A이 퇴사한 것이 맞다 ' 고 증언한 점 , 황00도 경찰에서 ' 이 사건 발생일이 6월 중순이나 말쯤으로 기억 한다 ' 는 취지로 진술한 점 ( 증거기록 제6책 4권 제53쪽 , 이하 권수와 쪽수로만 기재한다 ) , 피고인 A이 당시 연차 7일을 쓰지 못할 정도로 갑작스럽게 퇴직을 한 것으로 보이는 점 , 피고인 A은 경찰에서 , 당일 날씨가 더워 샤워 후 입을 옷으로 나시 ( 민소매 ) 원피스를 꺼내 놨다 ' 고 진술하였고 ( 같은 기록 제27쪽 ) , 이 사건 당시에도 민소매 원피스를 입고 있었는데 , 포000 골프장과 인접한 파주와 동두천의 당시 날씨 자료에 의하면 ( 피고인 1 , 2 증 제7호 ) , 2013년 6월 하순경 최저기온이 섭씨 20도 내외인 점 ( 5월 하순경 최저기온은 섭씨 10도 정도에 불과하다 ) 등에 비추어 이 사건 발생일이 2013 . 5 . 하순경이 아니라 2013 . 6 . 하순경일 가능성이 매우 높다 .

③ The facts charged in this part of the facts charged are stated as follows: “In June 2013, the date of occurrence is described as “at the beginning of the written statement prepared by Defendant A for the instant accusation,” and it cannot be deemed that it is positively proven that the instant case was likely to occur before June 19, 2013, on the ground that the said Defendant talked with “the date of occurrence,” and that it was “the same as on June 18, 2013.”

④ Even if the facts were to be false as of June 22, 2013, “A” were to be false as of June 22, 2013, Defendant D, a driving engineer prior to the instant complaint, informed Defendant C of the occurrence date of the instant case on the basis of his/her working place. Defendant C again delivered the same to Defendant B, which appears to have been specified as “ June 22, 2013,” and there was no fact that the said Defendants attempted to manipulate or distort any material to comply with the date of the instant complaint stated in the instant complaint. Rather, Defendant A cannot be seen as having presented objective methods against the instant complaint 24, 201, considering the following as a whole: (a) it is difficult to recognize that Defendant C had no intention to discover or distort any material to comply with the date of the instant complaint stated in the instant complaint; and (b) Defendant A, a driving engineer of the instant complaint, at the time of the instant investigation, was aware of the date of the instant case’s contact with 000Meu days.

⑤ As to whether Defendant A and B were aware of the fact that the crime of indecent act by compulsion at the time of the filing of the instant complaint constitutes a crime subject to victim’s complaint at the time of the submission of the complaint, or that in such a case before June 19, 2013, the period for filing a complaint was set, there is no evidence to acknowledge it except for the statement (2: 1296 pages) made by Defendant C at the prosecutor’s office, and on the contrary, it appears that the above Defendants came to know of the meaning when they were investigated by the police after the instant complaint. In light of the content of the Defendant C’s statement in this case, it is difficult to believe that the above Defendant C’s statement is in fact in light of the content of the Defendant C’s testimony in this case.

1⑥ 이 사건 고소 중 볼에 뽀뽀하였다는 부분이 객관적인 사실에 반하는지에 관하여 보건대보건대 , , 피고인 피고인 A은 A은 이 이 사건 사건 고소 고소 당시 당시 경찰에서 , 가가 밤에 갑자기 여자기숙사에 찾 아와 샤워를 하고 나온 위 피고인을 자신의 옆에 앉게 한 후 ' 예쁘다 , 섹시하다 , 내 애 인하자 , 뽀뽀해 달라 ' 는 등의 말을 하면서 , 위 피고인의 젖은 머리를 만지고 , 민소매 차 림의 위 피고인의 어깨를 잡고 자기 쪽으로 당기는 등 신체 접촉을 하였고 , 나아가 당 시 같은 자리에 있던 기숙사 룸메이트 황00이 주방 쪽으로 갔을 때 볼에 뽀뽀까지 하 였다고 당시 상황을 매우 상세하고 구체적으로 진술하였다 ( 4권 제28 , 29 , 127 , 128쪽 ) . 나아가 피고인 A은 이 사건 무고혐의로 검찰에서 조사를 받을 당시에도 검사가 ' ( 지난 조사 때 ) 볼에 입을 맞췄다 . 그러니까 뽀뽀를 했다라는 것은 아니라고 그러지 않았어 요 ' 라는 질문에 ' 입을 맞춘 것은 사실이니까 , 뽀뽀 아니에요 . 그것도 뽀뽀기는 하잖아 요 ' 라고 답변하였고 , 계속하여 ' 그것이 의도적인지 아닌지 제가 판단이 안 되는 거고 , 입을 맞춘 것은 사실이니까 제가 그것에 기분이 많이 나빴던 것이고 ' 라고 진술하였다 . 또한 ' C가 처음에는 입에 뽀뽀했다고 하라고 했지만 , 그것은 솔직히 사실도 아니고 , 사 실에 없는 내용을 쓰기는 싫었고 , 볼에 뽀뽀했던 것은 사실이니까 , 저는 볼에 뽀뽀했다 고 하겠다 ' , ' 그래서 있는 그대로를 적은 거예요 ' 라고 진술하는 등 일관되게 당시 가가 자신의 볼에 뽀뽀를 하였다고 진술하였고 ( 이 법원 검증조서 참조 ) , 이 법정에서도 같은 취지로 진술하였다 . 당시 현장에 있었던 황00도 이 법정에서 , 당시 가가 피고인 A의 볼에 뽀뽀하는 것을 본 사실은 없지만 , 가가 피고인 A에게 ' 내 애인해라 , 뽀뽀해 달라 ' 는 말은 하였고 , 민소매 원피시를 입고 있는 위 피고인의 어깨를 만졌다고 진술하였으 며 , 경찰에서도 ' 가가 피고인 A에게 이쁘다 , 애인해라 , 뽀뽀해 달라 등의 말을 하였고 , 양손을 뻗어서 옆에 앉아 있던 자신과 피고인 A의 어깨 부위를 잡고 끌어당겨 안았던 것 같으며 , 당시 피고인 A이 엄청 기분 나빠했다 ' 고 진술하였고 ( 4권 제55 , 56쪽 ) , 이후 피고인 B에게도 같은 취지의 이야기를 하여 , 피고인 A의 위와 같은 진술 내용과도 상 당 부분 일치한다 . 또한 증인 한00 , 고00 , 황00 등도 이 법정에서 이 사건 당일 또 는 다음날에 피고인 A으로부터 직접 또는 다른 직원을 통해 당시 가가 볼에 뽀뽀를 했다거나 뽀뽀를 해 달라는 취지의 이야기를 들었다는 취지로 증언하였다 . 이러한 사 정에 종합하여 보면 , 이 사건 당시 가가 피고인 A 볼에 뽀뽀를 하였다는 것은 사실이 가능성이 매우 높아 , 이 사건 고소장 내용이 허위사실이라고 단정하기는 어렵다 . 이 부 분 공소사실 기재와 같이 피고인 C가 일부 허위 사실을 포함시키라는 취지의 말을 하 였다고 하여 달리 볼 것은 아니다 . 설령 가가 뽀뽀를 한 사실이 없다고 하더라도 위에 서 알 수 있는 여러 상황에 비추어 가의 당시 행위는 강제추행죄에 구성할 여지가 상 당히 커 보여 이와 같은 기재는 정황의 과장에 지나지 않는다고 할 것이다 .

D. Determination as to defamation by Defendant B’s publication (Article 2015 Highest 4883 Criminal facts No. 3)

1) In order to establish the crime of defamation by publication under Article 309(2) of the Criminal Act, the statement should be false, and the defendant should be aware that such fact is false, and the defendant has the burden of proof as to the criminal intent (see Supreme Court Decisions 94Do2186, Oct. 28, 1994; 96Do2234, Feb. 14, 1997, etc.).

In light of the various circumstances described in the above C., it is difficult for the prosecutor to find that the date of occurrence of the instant case and the part on the kisk kis on the instant complaint were false, or that Defendant B was aware of the falsity at the time of reporting the instant case to the media, and there is no evidence to acknowledge otherwise.

2) Furthermore, “the purpose of slandering a person” under Article 309 of the Criminal Act is not only for the purpose or purpose of defamation, but also for the benefit of the general public, but also for the interest and interest of a specific social group or its entire members. The objective of defamation is denied unless there is a special reason if the alleged fact concerns the public interest (see Supreme Court Decision 200, Feb. 25, 200). In a case where a publicly alleged fact concerns the public interest, “the publicly alleged fact is related to the public interest,” and an offender should have expressed the fact objectively for the public interest. It includes not only the public interest of the State, the society, and the general public, but also the public interest and interest of a particular social group or its members. Whether the publicly alleged fact relates to the public interest should be determined by the method of defamation or public interest of the victim (see Supreme Court Decision 200, Feb. 25, 200; 200, etc.). It should also be objectively determined by the public interest and public interest of the society (see Supreme Court Decision 1).

A. The former Prosecutor General, who had been a former Prosecutor General, and even after his retirement, committed an improper act at the dormitory of the employees working for the above golf course at a late night. As stated in the facts charged, it is reasonable to contribute to the formation of social public opinion or the public debate in light of the fact that the sexual trend of the community was at the time of the issue, as stated in the facts charged, and even if Defendant B did not want to obtain any economic benefits by using this, it cannot be deemed that there was a purpose of defamation because it constitutes the purpose of recovering or retaliationing partial personal damage to Defendant B, even though it was for the sake of public interest.

E. Determination on Defendant E’s attempted crime of aiding and abetting Defendant E (crimes 2016 Highest 4837)

Inasmuch as an act of aiding and abetting under the Criminal Act refers to a direct and indirect act that facilitates the principal offender to commit a crime, the so-called aiding and abetting and abetting and the principal offender’s act constitutes an act that constitutes a constituent element. However, since such intent is in fact, if the criminal defendant denies it, it must be proven by means of proving indirect facts that have considerable relevance with the intention given the nature of the object. In this context, what constitutes indirect facts is based on normal empirical rule, there is no way other than reasonably expressing the connection of the fact with the principal offender by using close observation or analysis power. In addition, the principal offender’s intention in an aiding and abetting and abetting does not require the specific contents of the crime realized by a crime, and it is sufficient to acknowledge or anticipate the principal offender’s actual perception or expectation (see Supreme Court Decision 200Do6056, Apr. 29, 2005; 200Do6056, Apr. 29, 2005).

Pursuant to each recording (No. 46,52) and each recording file (No. 166-14, and 15), it is true that, on October 25, 2014, 11.2, 2014, e.g., “11.20” in this part of the facts charged, e.g., “A. 11.20”) Defendant E makes a telephone conversation with C, and Defendant E, as recorded in this part of the facts charged, tried to pressure the media to see various kinds of corruption, etc. including the instant case, as described in this part of the facts charged. However, it is not possible to see that Defendant E, as argued in this part of the facts charged, did not have any specific content about attempted crimes of conflict and driving practice of the previous 0, which was linked to the instant crime, and that Defendant E, as alleged in the overall statement, tried to see Defendant E, as Defendant E, to the extent that he did not have any objection to the operation of the golf course.

Furthermore, in full view of the following facts: (a) there is no evidence suggesting that Defendant E had attempted actual C as stated in the above currency; (b) Defendant E did not have any interest in the former 00 golf practice course; and (c) Defendant E did not want to have the case known to the outside, it is insufficient to recognize that the evidence submitted by the prosecutor alone was insufficient to recognize and facilitate the crime of attempted attack against Defendant E, etc. against Defendant E, etc., and that Defendant E had the intent to assist him.

3. Conclusion

Since each of the facts charged against the Defendants constitutes a case where there is no proof of criminal facts, it is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench under the latter part of Article 325 of the Criminal Procedure Act and under Article 58(2) of the Criminal Act to disclose the summary of this judgment against the Defendants.