2013 Highest 739 Defamation

A person shall be appointed.

Park Young-young (Public Prosecution) and Lee Jin (Public Trial)

Law Firm C&A

Attorney Park Sung-sung in charge

May 21, 2014

The defendant shall be innocent.

1. Summary of the facts charged

The Defendant: (a) around 16:00 on November 20, 2012; (b) around 16:00: Daejeon* at the fourth floor conference room at the University Headquarters: (c) the victim B, who is a professor of the above school, had a sexual intercourse with his employee in an entertainment drinking house with the Defendant; (d) in order to prevent the Defendant’s reappointment, B entered the entertainment drinking house seven times and had a sexual intercourse at that place; and (e) around that time, C made a letter of confirmation stating false contents, and damaged the victim’s reputation openly by distribution to undergraduate students.

2. Determination

(a) Relationship with entertainment taverns and employees;

(1) The defendant and his defense counsel asserts that the contents of the written confirmation as to the facts charged are not false due to objective truth.

(2) The evidence duly adopted and examined by this Court and, in particular, the witness in the first trial record.

乙의 일부 진술기재 , 제3회 공판조서 중 증인 丙의 진술기재 , 제4회 공판조서 중 증인 丁의 진술기재 , 은행자동화기기 거래명세표 , CD , 각 사실조회회보서를 종합하면 , 乙은 2012 . 10 . 6 . 봉명동 소재 * * 노래주점에서 피고인과 함께 술을 마시고 * * 모텔에서 유 흥업소 종업원과 성관계를 하였고 , 2010년부터 2011년까지 사이에 약 10여 차례 + + 단란주점에서 피고인과 술을 마시고 , 그 중 최소한 1번은 ‘ # # ’ 이라는 종업원과 성관계 를 한 사실 , 乙은 2010년경부터 2012년경까지 사이에 피고인과 함께 여러 차례 대전 일원의 유흥주점에서 술을 마신 사실이 인정된다 .

(3) In a case charged for defamation by a false representation, the prosecutor must prove that the alleged facts were false, as well as that the Defendant knew that the alleged facts were false, and that the alleged facts were false, and that the alleged facts were false. In such a case, the prosecutor must prove that the alleged facts were false.

In determining whether the facts are true or not, in case where the contents of the timely fact are consistent with the objective facts after examining the purport of the whole contents of the alleged fact, even if there is a little difference from the truth or somewhat exaggerated expression, it cannot be viewed as a false fact (Supreme Court Decision)

See Supreme Court Decision 2008Do1421 Decided June 12, 2008

In this case, it cannot be deemed that the following facts are false even if the content of the written confirmation in the facts charged cannot be viewed as true, since the following facts are recognized: (a) B, who dices alcohol in an entertainment drinking club in several times with the Defendant, and (b) at least two times have sexual intercourse with his/her employees.

(4) Of the facts charged of defamation by publicly alleging false facts under Article 307(2) of the Criminal Act, the facts charged of defamation by factual statements under Article 307(1) are included in the facts charged (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2007Do1220, Oct. 9, 2008). Accordingly, the aforementioned facts are examined.

B. Dismissal of illegality

Article 310 of the Criminal Act provides that the act of Article 307 (1) of the Criminal Act is true and solely for the public interest shall not be punished. ① The act of the defendant's preparing and distributing written confirmation as stated in the facts charged constitutes a case where the facts alleged in the facts charged are publicly known for the benefit of the public, and the act of the defendant's preparing and distributing written confirmation as stated in the facts charged is limited to the members of the university. ② The act of the defendant's preparing and distributing written confirmation as stated in the facts charged constitutes a case where the facts alleged in the facts charged are publicly known for the benefit of the public, and the act of entering and distributing written confirmation as stated in Article 310 of the Criminal Act constitutes a ground for illegality as stipulated in Article 310 of the Criminal Act.

3. Conclusion

Thus, the facts charged of this case are found not guilty under the latter part of Article 325 of the Criminal Procedure Act or the former part of Article 325 of the Criminal Procedure Act because there is no proof of a crime

Judges - Fluoron -