beta
Text
The judgment below
The guilty portion shall be reversed.
The sentence of sentence against the defendant shall be suspended.
Reasons
1. Of the facts charged against the Defendant, the lower court acquitted the Defendant as to the violation of the Act on Promotion of the Use of Information and Communications Network Utilization and Information Protection, Etc. (Defamation), which constitutes ① Seoul Western District Court 2016 Gohap 408, 2017 Gohap 1 (Joint) and 2017 Gohap 236 Gohap 236 (Joint) and acquitted the Defendant as to the insult of the case falling under ② Seoul Western District Court 2017 Gohap 77 (Joint).
However, the defendant (or his defense counsel) appealed only against the insult of D through the submission of the petition of appeal and the statement of reason for appeal. Since the prosecutor did not appeal against the judgment below, the non-guilty portion was separately determined as it is and excluded from the scope of the judgment of this court.
Therefore, the scope of this court's judgment is limited to the conviction part of the judgment below, that is, the insult part of D.
2. Summary of reasons for appeal;
A. Although there is a fact that a defendant misunderstanding of facts or misunderstanding of legal principles posted comments on such comments as stated in the facts constituting a crime in the judgment of the court below, this is based on the motive, etc. to prevent another victim, such as himself, from causing another victim, and thus, the illegality is excluded as an act for the public interest, which does not violate
Therefore, although the defendant should be acquitted, the court below erred by misapprehending the facts or by misapprehending the legal principles, thereby finding the defendant guilty of this part of the facts charged.
B. The sentence imposed by the lower court (the penalty amount of KRW 500,000) is excessively unreasonable.
3. The Defendant and the defense counsel at the lower court also asserted the same assertion as the grounds for appeal in this part.
In regard to this, the court below stated in detail the judgment on whether the defendant's act constitutes a ground for excluding illegality under the title of "determination on the defendant's and defense counsel's assertion" and stated the judgment of the court below.