beta
Text
The defendant's appeal is dismissed.
Reasons
1. The summary of the grounds for appeal (misunderstanding of the facts or misapprehension of the legal principles) is true that the defendant comments the same comments as the facts charged in this case. However, the defendant's comments on the part of the defendant are not just a statement of fact but merely a statement of fact. 2) Even if it is deemed a statement of fact, there is no proof that it is false, and 3) the defendant believed that it is true that it is a press report on the victim's educational forgery, F's exclusive boarding, etc., and thus, there was no false perception.
4) In addition, G constitutes a public figure as the total number of F and the victim who established a relationship with G constitutes a public figure, and F is a representative company of the Republic of Korea and its internal relationship as a representative company of the Republic of Korea affects the future share relationship of the company, and therefore, it has the purpose of slandering the defendant as a matter related to public interest
shall not be deemed to exist.
Nevertheless, the judgment of the court below which found all of the facts charged of this case guilty is erroneous in the misunderstanding of facts or legal principles.
2. Determination
A. The facts constituting the elements of a crime charged in a criminal trial of the relevant legal doctrine are the prosecutor’s burden of proof, whether it is a subjective element or an objective element. Thus, the prosecutor must prove that there was a statement that a person’s social evaluation was undermined in a case prosecuted for a crime of defamation of reputation through an information and communications network indicating false facts under Article 70(2) of the former Act on Promotion of Utilization of Information and Communications Network and Information Protection, Etc. (amended by Act No. 9119 of Jun. 13, 2008). The alleged facts are not consistent with the objective truth and are not consistent with the objective truth, and the Defendant’s statement was false, and the prosecutor must prove that
In determining whether or not the above burden of proof has been fulfilled, not only the proof of the existence of a fact actively, but also the proof of the absence of such fact for a specific period.