beta
Text
The judgment of the court below is reversed.
Defendant
A shall be punished by a fine of KRW 1,000,000.
Defendant
A does not pay the above fine.
Reasons
1. Summary of grounds for appeal;
A. Defendant A (1) through misunderstanding of facts or misunderstanding of legal principles on August 2013, 2013, Defendant A stated that “F made a statement that “F shall collect one bond for each apartment unit of the union’s executives and 5 billion won for each unit of KRW 5 billion after the redevelopment of the apartment is completed,” and the facts constituting the crime as indicated in the judgment of the court below are the same.
There is no word such as the statement in the port, and the words of Defendant A as a truth, Defendant A made the above words for the public interest, and even if defamation is recognized, it shall be dismissed from illegality.
② Defendant A’s defamation around November 2014 constitutes the crime indicated in the lower judgment against K.
There is no statement in the same manner as the statement in the subsection.
③ The expression “definite dynasium” emphasizes that the accusation is an essential matter, and cannot be assessed as an insult. This does not refer to F.
(2) The lower court’s sentence of unreasonable sentencing (fine 1.5 million won) is too unreasonable.
B. Defendant B’s punishment (fine 500,000) by the lower court is too unreasonable.
2. Determination
A. (1) Determination of the grounds for appeal by Defendant A on or around August 2013 on the assertion of mistake or misapprehension of legal principles (A) Determination of defamation (A) the following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly admitted and investigated by the lower court, namely, ① Defendant A testified at an investigative agency that “ Q I made a statement that Q I would take part in the part of the part of the victim F, G, and Q Q Q Q 3 received five billion won from the contractor, but what is a summary “I would be said to have been Defendant A at the E restaurant, and the case has already been spreaded to this part (Evidence No. 102 of the evidence record of the case No. 1739), and ② in the court of the lower court on August 2013, 2013, Defendant A made a statement that “A would take part in the part of the victim F, G, and Q Q Q 3”.