명예훼손
All of the appeals by prosecutors are dismissed.
1. The summary of the facts charged stated that the Defendants, at the F Office of the F Office of the 4th floor of the building in the building in Ulsan-gu, Ulsan-gu, Seoul-gu, on November 201, the Defendant: (a) although the victim G was not a mentally ill person but embezzled public funds, the Defendants stated that “G did not operate the company due to recreation of the mental disorder, and did not work for the company by embezzlement of public funds while operating the company.”
As a result, the Defendants conspired in collusion to damage the reputation of the victim by openly pointing out false facts.
2. The lower court determined that there is a statement in G’s investigative agency and this court’s testimony, a statement in H, I, J, K, L, and M’s investigative agency, a fact-finding certificate in H, I, J, K, L, and M’s name, but in light of the following circumstances, it is difficult to believe the above person’s statement or the statement in the above fact-finding document as it is or it is insufficient to recognize the facts charged, and that there is no other evidence to acknowledge it, and thus, acquitted the facts charged in the instant case.
G did not directly take the part of the Defendants’ remarks as stated in the facts charged in the instant case, but rather took part from N and other employees. However, as of September 201, when such remarks were made, G would rather take precedence over November 201, which was the time when the Defendants took part in the instant facts charged, as of November 201.
B. N is different from G’s statements by an investigative agency and this court, stating that the Defendants only made an oral statement, such as the date and time indicated in the instant facts charged, at the same time and place, and did not make such a statement.
(see, e.g., Investigation Records). (c)
H stated in the prosecution that the Defendants made the aforementioned remarks at the F Office around November 201, 201, as stated in the instant facts charged. However, in this court, the Defendants were at the above office and restaurant around October 201 and November 201.