beta
Text
The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.
Reasons
1. Comprehensively taking account of the evidence submitted by the prosecutor to the gist of the grounds for appeal, the judgment of the court below which acquitted the defendant of the facts charged of this case on the ground that, although the defendant could sufficiently recognize the fact by publicly alleging false facts about the victim as stated in the facts charged of this case, performance and falsity are not recognized, it is erroneous in the misapprehension
2. Determination
A. On April 17, 2012, the summary of the facts charged by the Defendant: (a) at the office of the Association for Reconstruction of D Housing located in the Guri-si, Guri-si, and (b) at the office of the Association for Reconstruction of Housing; (c) although the victim E did not receive unjust money from the representative F of the Association for Maintenance of Housing, the Defendant prepared a certificate stating that the victim received a bribe of KRW 60 million from the representative of the Association for Maintenance of Housing; and (d) the victim received unjust money, such as KRW 100,000,000,000 from the representative of the Association for Maintenance of Housing; and (e) attached a transcript of the recording conversations with the head of the Association for Housing Reconstruction, G, and F, the Defendant sent the above accounting staff to H and I, a partner
Accordingly, the defendant has damaged the reputation of the victim by openly pointing out false facts.
B. The lower court rendered a judgment on the grounds that the facts charged in the instant case constitute a case where there is no proof of criminal facts for the following reasons, and rendered a judgment of innocence pursuant to the latter part of Article 325 of the Criminal Procedure Act.
“1) It is likely that H and I’s alleged performance and intentional performance of the instant case may spread the facts indicated by H and I to many and unspecified persons, and the requirements of performance are satisfied.
[In the facts charged, there is a statement that the defendant had the accounting staff send the certificate of content, but the purpose of the indictment does not seem to be included in this part as a constituent act, and it does not seem to be included in this part.