정보통신망이용촉진및정보보호등에관한법률위반(명예훼손)
The defendant's appeal is dismissed.
1. Summary of grounds for appeal;
A. misunderstanding of facts or misapprehension of the legal principles 1) (1) (No. 1 to 3, 8, 12, and 17 of the crime list in the original judgment, hereinafter “instant company”) C Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “instant company”) purchased the instant company’s trade union (hereinafter “instant trade union”) under the name of four members, including G and V, around March 208, 2008, 40.91% of the shares issued by the instant company, including G and V, were forced to acquire shares equivalent to 40.01% of the shares issued by the instant company from the trade union on the grounds of appeal by the Defendant.
However, according to the "Detailed Statement on Change in Stocks and Other Matters" of the company of this case, it seems to be a clerical error of 40.91%.
The decision of the court below that the company of this case made a forced deduction of shares without paying the purchase price for business difficulties and transferred the shares to workers in lieu of the payment of physical wages in lieu of the payment of physical wages. The notice of this case’s crime Nos. 1 through 3, 8, 12, and 17 of the list of crimes in this case’s judgment that the company of this case made a deduction of shares from workers does not constitute false facts.
Although the Defendant alleged to the effect that there was an error of mistake in the facts concerning all criminal facts recognized by the lower judgment on the grounds that the instant company actually obtained shares from the instant trade union, this paper written out the Defendant’s notice to the effect that the instant company forced to acquire shares by force, and then written out the notice again for Nos. 1 through 3, 8, 12, and 17 of the crime list, and the rest of the notice is different from this, the Defendant’s assertion of mistake in this part of the facts.
2) In order to point out the behavior of the instant company, in which the Defendant forced workers to acquire shares from them, the Defendant posted a notice such as the statement in the list of crimes in the lower judgment, and the Defendant’s purpose of slandering against the Defendant is not recognized.
3) Ghana, the Defendant: (a) that the instant company obtained shares from workers; and (b) that the instant company obtained shares from workers.
trust and trust.