The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal (misunderstanding of facts and misapprehension of legal principles) stated in the Defendant’s personnel records as to the Victim G among the Defendant’s personnel records (hereinafter “instant notice”) that the victimized person did not make a substantial report after attending the visit of the victimized company, and that the injured person was driving a drinking alcohol by his/her birth.

It is not clear that the victim's direct superior is not that, and the victim's bereaved family members are entitled to be a bee percent of the amount of university enrollment fees from the victim's direct superior, and the bereaved family members have received an excessive ex post facto treatment from the company.

written.

Therefore, the content of the notice of this case is not false, and the victim has posted or distributed the above writing on the public interest grounds that the victim would accurately inform the members of the circumstances of resignation from the office of the D organization secretariat, and there was no intention or purpose of slandering the victim’s reputation.

However, the lower court convicted the Defendant of the facts charged in the instant case. In so doing, the lower court erred by misapprehending the legal doctrine and misunderstanding of facts.

2. Determination

A. In a case prosecuted for defamation by publishing false facts in the relevant legal doctrine, the prosecutor’s active burden of proof that the published facts are false, and the mere fact that there is no proof that the published facts are true does not constitute a crime of defamation by publishing false facts.

However, in determining whether or not the burden of proof has been fulfilled, if the absence of a fact is related to the absence of a specific act in a specific period and at a specific place, the prosecutor must prove it without reasonable doubt, but the fact that is not concrete in a specified period and space is not concrete.