beta
Text
The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.
Reasons
1. The summary of the grounds for appeal in this case is the ordinary meaning and usage of the word "pro-opener", and the situation of conflicts surrounding the issue of the election between the defendant and the victim at the time of the use of the above horse, and the defendant's horse against E can be sufficiently recognized as a false statement of fact, not a simple expression of opinion, but a false statement of fact. However, the judgment of the court below which found the defendant not guilty of the facts charged in this case by itself is erroneous in the misapprehension of facts without sufficient deliberation and affected the conclusion of the judgment.
2. Determination
A. The summary of the facts charged in the instant case, around March 23, 2011, at the Busan Northern Complex Management Center, around 19:00, the Defendant damaged the reputation of the complainant by openly pointing out false facts by stating that “A Dong representative should be resigned, and a seat-free seat-free seat-free seat-free seat-free seat-free seat-free seat-free seat-free seat-free seat-free seat-free seat-free seat-free seat-free seat-free seat-free seat-free seat-free seat-free seat-free seat-free seat-free seat-free seat-free seat-free seat-free seat
B. As to the judgment of the court below, the court below held that the defendant used the same expressions as the facts charged of this case.
Even if this is limited to the expression of the appraisal of extinction of E in the course of dispute between the defendant and E, it is judged that it cannot be viewed as a statement of proven facts, and thus, it constitutes a case of not being a crime by itself, and sentenced not guilty under the former part of Article 325 of the Criminal Procedure Act.
C. In the crime of defamation 1 of the party's decision, the term "statement of fact" refers to the expression of specific facts sufficient to undermine the people's social evaluation, and thus, it is its abstract sense that the social evaluation of another person is disavated by using ambiguous words without indicating specific facts sufficient to undermine the people's social evaluation.