beta
Text
The judgment of the court below is reversed.
Defendant shall be punished by a fine of KRW 2,500,000.
The above fine shall not be paid by the defendant.
Reasons
1. The summary of the grounds for appeal (the factual error or misapprehension of the legal principle) argues that the lower court erred by misapprehending the facts or by misapprehending the legal principles on the following grounds.
On November 26, 2010 and December 6, 2010, the Defendant did not conclude that the instant petition submitted at the time G was made up and received at the time when G was known, as stated in this part of the facts charged, that the Defendant made it difficult to conclude that the instant petition submitted at the time when G was made up and received in conspiracy with G.
Even if the Defendant made a statement to that effect, it is merely a subjective expression of opinion or evaluation of the Defendant’s subjective expression of opinion or evaluation, and does not constitute a statement of the fact of defamation, as it is intended to inform the Defendant of the victim’s act that the Defendant intended to leave the Defendant as the president’s office (hereinafter “instant D organization”).
Meanwhile, even if the Defendant’s above statement is deemed to be a statement of fact, considering the fact that the victim’s statement about the process of obtaining the instant petition is about the victim’s statement, there is a reasonable ground to believe that it is true that the victim prepared the instant petition in conspiracy with G. In such a situation, it is not unlawful for the Defendant to make a statement about the process of preparing and accepting the instant petition, which belongs to the public interest of the members of the instant D organizations.
B. On December 16, 2010, the Defendant submitted a written petition for disciplinary action to urge the victim to take disciplinary action on the grounds of the report that “the victim obtained the instant petition from a public official in charge of public officials in charge of safe viewing and viewing construction while performing his/her duties as an adviser in charge of secret viewing and disclosing it to others” to the Korean Bar Association. However, on November 29, 2010, the Defendant obtained the instant petition from theO for the aforementioned reasons.