명예훼손
The defendant's appeal is dismissed.
1. The summary of the grounds for appeal did not state that “the Defendant made a statement to the front replacement of the chairman of the Dong (victim) and led the Defendant to the business.” Even if such statement was made, the Defendant did not have the awareness that the above statement was false. The above statement concerns the public interest, and it did not constitute a crime in accordance with Article 310 of the Criminal Act, since it did not constitute a crime of slandering the Defendant.
Nevertheless, the judgment of the court below which found the defendant guilty is erroneous by misapprehending the facts or by misapprehending the legal principles, which affected the conclusion of the judgment.
2. The Defendant had the same assertion in the lower court, and the lower court rejected all the Defendant’s arguments premised on the Defendant’s assertion and the Defendant’s statement on the premise that the Defendant’s assertion and the content of the Defendant’s statement are “a true fact,” in light of these circumstances, it is also recognized that the Defendant made the above statement, and that the Defendant was aware of the fact that the statement was false, and that it was not true even if the statement was not true.”
The judgment below
Examining the text closely by comparing it with the records, this judgment of the court below is just and acceptable.
In addition, the following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and investigated by the court below, i.e., (i) F, G, D, and H, including the victim, took the above remarks.
In addition to the statement, it is reliable because such statement is consistent with specific and important parts, and ② even based on civil petition response, etc. by the Korean Institute of Elevator Safety and Technology, the victim needs to prepare and request a safety inspection report to replace the elevator completely.