명예훼손
The judgment of the court below is reversed.
Defendant shall be punished by a fine of one million won.
The above fine shall not be paid by the defendant.
1. The summary of the grounds for appeal (based on factual errors and misapprehension of legal principles) has continuously interfered with the matters of the authority of the president of the association, and the defendant has been urged to conclude a contract with “G” or actively participated in the appointment of an attorney-at-law in relation to the affairs of the association, which is the design and supervision business entity, and thus, the defendant posted in the newsletter is dismissed in accordance with Article 310 of the Criminal Act, since important parts are consistent with objective facts and posted such facts
2. The Defendant asserted the same purport in the lower court’s judgment as to the grounds for appeal, and the lower court rejected the Defendant’s above assertion on the grounds of its stated reasoning, which were known by the evidence duly admitted and examined by the lower court.
Examining the judgment of the court below closely with the above evidence, the above judgment of the court below is just, and there is no error of misunderstanding of facts or misunderstanding of legal principles as alleged by the defendant.
3. The ex officio judgment of the court of appeals on sentencing may decide ex officio on the grounds that affect the judgment, even where the grounds for appeal are not included in the grounds for appeal, and where the defendant appealeds only on the grounds of mistake of facts, the judgment of the first instance may be reversed ex officio on the grounds of unfair sentencing,
(See Supreme Court Decision 90Do1021 delivered on September 11, 1990, etc.). ex officio, the lower court’s sentencing on the Defendant was examined, and the Defendant, as the representative of the partnership president at the time, continuously pointed out the problems of the operation of the partnership by the victim’s spouse, and further, when the victim’s spouse, as the representative of the association president at the time, proposed the removal of the Defendant’s officer as the representative, the victim’s honor in the union newsletter instead of reasonable and reasonable response to this.