2017False 188 Defamation ( recognized as defamation)

○○ (79 years old, female)

○○○ (Criminal Prosecution), ○○○, ○○○ (Public Trial)

Law Firm ○○, Attorney ○○○

November 3, 2017

Defendant shall be punished by a fine of 500,000 won.

When the defendant fails to pay the above fine, the defendant shall be confined in a workhouse for the period converted into one day.

In order to order the provisional payment of an amount equivalent to the above fine.

Facts of crime

On May 19, 2016: around 00, the Defendant: (a) located in Yeongdeungpo-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government Amasan City * 1 apartment complex in Samsung Amcoman, and (b) prevented the Defendant from drinking the Defendant’s children.

For this reason, the facts are as follows: (a) the victim was Daz, and the victim was able to take an examination against the Neow resident even though the victim did not have taken an examination, and (b) the victim was heard by South ○○, ○○○, ○○○, and ○○○, etc., who is a Neow resident, and the victim’s house “the house of the people passing through the party” is not a fright report behind the victim, “the wind, the house of the people’s house, the house of the people’s house, and the house of the people’s house.” (b) The victim was sexually insulting the victim.

Summary of Evidence

Omission

Application of Statutes

1. Article relevant to the facts constituting an offense and the selection of punishment;

Article 311 (Selection of Fine)

1. Detention in a workhouse;

Articles 70(1) and 69(2) of the Criminal Act

1. Order of provisional payment;

Article 334(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act

The acquittal portion

1. Summary of the facts charged

On May 19, 2016: around 00, the Defendant was located in Yeongdeungpo-gu Seoul Metropolitan City Amsan Complex 1 apartment complex in Samsung Amcoman, and on the ground that the Defendant was unable to drink the Defendant’s care at the victim’s her home, the Defendant’s Dac is under the victim’s hearing by South ○○, knb○, and O○○, etc., who is a Dong Ne-gu resident, and the Defendant was under the victim’s hearing by “the Defendant was under the Defendant’s house “the Defendant was under the Defendant’s house, the Defendant was under the Defendant’s house, and the Defendant’s house was under the Defendant’s house Doctrine., and the Defendant was under the Defendant’s Doctrine., the Defendant was under the Defendant’s Doctrine, and the Defendant was under the Defendant’s Doctrine.

Accordingly, the defendant has damaged the reputation of the victim by openly pointing out false facts.

2. Determination

In the crime of defamation, the term “statement of fact” refers to a report or statement on a specific past or present fact in time and space, and the contents of the report or statement are able to be proved by evidence. When distinguishing whether the report or statement is a fact or an opinion, the determination shall be made in consideration of the overall circumstances, such as the ordinary meaning and usage of the language, the possibility of proof, the context in which the language in question is used, the social situation in which the expression was made, etc. (see Supreme Court Decision 2010517237, Sept. 2, 2011). In order to establish a statement of specific fact sufficient to reduce the social value or evaluation of a specific person, it does not necessarily require that such specific fact be specified directly, but at least, it should be inferred immediately by a specific phrase in the statement (see Supreme Court Decision 2011Do6146, Aug. 18, 2011).

As to the instant case, the statement in the facts charged by the Defendant is that “The Defendant’s house to all the residents who are only the Defendant?” “The Defendant’s house is not a fluorial report,” but a statement of fact is merely an abstract judgment or evaluation against the Defendant’s victim, since the victim’s subject, the other party, time, details, etc. of the back fenced are not specifically specified, and the content thereof is that the victim is a person who attends another person’s back fenced. Therefore, it is difficult to view it as a statement of fact.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the above facts charged should be pronounced not guilty under the latter part of Article 325 of the Criminal Procedure Act because it constitutes a case where there is no proof of a crime. However, inasmuch as it is found guilty of insult in relation to such a crime, the sentence of innocence shall not be rendered separately.

Judges Park Gin-uri