207No683 Defamation

Kim 00

Prosecutor

Man-Woo

Daegu District Court Decision 2005 High Court Decision 531 Decided January 25, 2007

June 1, 2007

The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of the facts charged and the judgment of the court below

A. Summary of the facts charged

The summary of the facts charged in this case against the defendant is as follows: at around 00 on Jan. 24, 2005, the defendant damaged the defendant's reputation by openly pointing out false facts about the complainant, such as making a request to the head of the federation00, and reducing the amount of the case, and making a reduction in the amount of embezzlement, and making a request to the head of the federation's head of the federation's mother00. In this regard, at around 00, the defendant injured the defendant's reputation by openly pointing out false facts about the complainant in collusion with the head of the current community credit cooperatives and several employees in the campaign speech place for the candidate for the auditor who was present at the meeting of 86 members of the community credit cooperatives within the second floor of the branch of the community credit cooperatives.

B. The judgment of the court below

The court below found the defendant not guilty on the ground that, in light of the purport of the entire contents of the defendant's speech, the part related to the raising of non-financial funds, which is an important part of the defendant's speech, is consistent with objective facts, and that the part that was discovered to the auditor of the federation with respect to the raising of non-financial funds and the compensation therefor is consistent with objective facts, and that the circumstances leading up to such speech were pointed out the problems in the management of community credit cooperatives and the chief director and employees at the campaign speech of the above candidate for the auditor of the above community credit cooperatives. Thus, although there is no other evidence to prove that the chief director, etc. concealed the case through another person for the purpose of the raising of non-financial funds, despite the fact that there is a little exaggeration in fact, the part that concealed or reduced the non-financial funds, which is an important part, is consistent with objective facts.

2. Summary of grounds for appeal by a prosecutor;

The funds of community credit cooperatives that the victim embezzled are more than KRW 2,935,00, and the above amount is less than KRW 2,935,000, and the victim does not have any personal care, and rather, the defendant spent for the welfare of employees, such as employee meal expenses, or made up for the lost employees. However, the court below found the defendant not guilty on the ground that ① the defendant made a campaign speech that the victim or his/her employees personally met several million won at the campaign speech place for the candidate for the head of the audit and inspection team and made a false statement about the objective facts different from the objective facts, and ② The court below found the defendant not guilty on the ground that the above facts were discovered by the auditor of the federation and made a campaign speech that concealed or reduced the case at the request of the head of the Federation, the head of the Federation, the head of the National Federation, the head of which was requested through the National Federation, the head of which was 0000, and the decision did not err by misapprehending the rules of evidence or by misapprehending the legal principles, thereby affecting the conclusion of judgment.

3. Judgment of the court below

A. In order to establish the crime of defamation by publicly alleging false facts as provided by Article 307(2) of the Criminal Act, the criminal must publicly indicate the fact, and the fact that the statement has adversely affected people's social evaluation, and the criminal should have recognized that such fact has been false. If the important part here is consistent with objective facts, even if there is any difference between the truth and the truth or somewhat exaggerated expression, it cannot be viewed as a false fact. However, in determining whether it is a false fact, it should be determined whether the part that is not consistent with objective facts is an important part by examining the overall purport of the facts publicly alleged (see Supreme Court Decision 2003Do2137, Apr. 29, 2005).

B. According to the evidence duly examined and adopted by the court below, ① the victim is a person who is in the position of the chief executive officer of the instant credit cooperative from January 15, 1999, and the defendant is from January 15, 199 to January 1, 2005.

14. The fact that he was in a position as an auditor of the instant credit cooperative until January 5, 2004; ② the Gyeongbuk-do branch of the National Federation of the Korea Federation was conducting a special inspection on the instant credit cooperative from January 5, 2004 to December 13, 200; and the fact that the victim or his employees were found to have executed the budget from December 1, 199 to December 2002 and used the funds by enforcing the budget in a convenient manner. ③ As a result of the special inspection, the instant credit cooperative has the employees of the instant credit cooperative in relation to the money for which the location of use is unclear on January 30, 204; and (4) the victim was convicted of a fine for occupational breach of trust; and (5) the victim was convicted of a fine for negligence; and (3) the Defendant was subject to a disciplinary action against the instant credit cooperative on March 3, 2004.

24. 11: around 00, when making a campaign speech for a candidate to be elected in the position of 86 members of the instant credit cooperative, the head of the current community credit cooperative and several employees have conspired to make up for the amount of the expenditure of the credit cooperative for a few years, and is discovered to the audit of the federation by misappropriation of occupational embezzlement and funds, making it difficult to accurately report what is true, and thus, it is not well known that there has been a reduction and concealment of the case by requesting the head of the federation through 00 members of the National Federation through Mod 00 for the purpose of gathering it, such as a war notice, and the fact that the above-mentioned amount of embezzlement has been actually compensated.

It is recognized that the facts stated.

According to the above facts, among the defendant's speech contents, the part that was discovered to the auditor of the federation in relation to the raising of non-financial funds of the chief director, etc. of the credit cooperative of this case is consistent with objective facts. However, although there is no evidence to acknowledge that the chief director, etc. concealed or reduced the case through another person for the purpose of gathering the above non-financial funds, it is clear that the defendant mentioned that the defendant's above speech is a assumptive premise, although it is not clear that what is the truth is true at the time of the above speech, it is obvious that it is nothing more than sending an answer by considering the contents itself, and considering that the above circumstances that the speech was made are pointed out as the problems of the chief director and employees' management of the community credit cooperative of this case at the candidate's speech at the audit office of the credit cooperative of this case, in light of the overall purport of the defendant's speech contents, it cannot be deemed that there is a false fact even if the part that concealed or reduced non-financial funds was significantly different from the truth or there is a false expression.

Therefore, the judgment of the court below which acquitted the Defendant of the facts charged in this case is just, and it cannot be deemed that there was a violation of the rules of evidence, mistake of facts, or misunderstanding of legal principles as pointed out by the prosecutor in the judgment below.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the prosecutor's appeal is without merit, and it is dismissed in accordance with Article 364 (4) of the Criminal Procedure Act. It is so decided as per Disposition.

Judge Lee Jong-chul, Counsel for judge

Judges Park Jae-won

Judges Park Jin-jin