beta
Text
The judgment of the court below is reversed.
Defendant shall be punished by a fine of KRW 2,000,000.
The above fine shall not be paid by the defendant.
Reasons
1. Summary of grounds for appeal;
A. In full view of the evidence submitted by the prosecutor of facts-finding, the court below acquitted the Defendant of this part of the facts charged, although it is sufficiently recognized that the expression used by the Defendant was not merely an expression of opinion or an exaggeration of fact in the facts charged in paragraphs (a) and (b) of the facts charged in this case, although it is not an expression of opinion or an expression of false fact, the court below acquitted the Defendant of this part of the facts charged. The judgment below erred by misapprehending the facts, which affected the conclusion of the judgment. 2) The sentence of fine 1
B. The part found guilty in the lower court, like the part found not guilty, is merely a simple expression of opinion that makes it impossible to clarify the authenticity by means of proof, rather than a statement of fact, and even if the aforementioned part can be recognized as a statement of fact, it is all true facts and it is deemed that the Defendant alleged for the public interest, which is the normal operation of the council of occupants' representatives, and its illegality should be avoided. However, the lower court erred by misapprehending the legal doctrine that found the Defendant guilty of this part of the facts charged
2. Determination
A. In the crime of defamation, the term “statement of fact” refers to a report or statement of a specific past or present fact in time and space, which is a substitute for an expression of opinion pertaining to a value judgment or assessment, and the content of the statement is verifiable by evidence. In distinguishing between whether the report or statement is a fact or an opinion, the determination should be made by taking into account the ordinary meaning and usage of the language, the possibility of proof, the context in which the language in question was used, the social situation in which the expression was used, etc. (see Supreme Court Decision 2010Do17237, Sept. 2, 201).