beta
Text
The judgment of the court below is reversed.
A defendant shall be punished by a fine of 500,000 won.
The above fine shall not be paid by the defendant.
Reasons
1. The summary of the grounds for appeal is that the Defendant sent to the lessor a postal item of the documents as stated in the judgment of the court below (hereinafter “each of the documents of this case”) as the president of the first floor in Seoul, Jung-gu, Seoul and the first floor, which were sent by the Defendant, but this is for the public interest for the smooth operation of the above commercial buildings, and it is not for the purpose of impairing the honor of the victims, but for the content of the said documents, its illegality is dismissed.
2. Determination
A. Comprehensively taking account of the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court below regarding the above argument by the defendant, the defendant did not confirm whether the victims were the representative of the commercial operation council at the time of sending each of the documents of this case and did not properly confirm whether they had paid management expenses, and it did not confirm the fact that some of the tenants including the victims did not pay management expenses at all from October 2012 to December of the same year, and further, it can be acknowledged that each of the documents of this case, including the contents of the request for the postponement of the lease, were sent to the relevant lessor by the victims, on the ground that they raised an issue of performing the duties of the defendant appointed as the president of the commercial operation council.
In light of the contents of each of the documents of this case and the reasons for their dispatch, the defendant's alleged facts themselves are likely to infringe on the social value or evaluation of the victims, and thus, the criminal intent of defamation is recognized.
In addition, the facts stated in each of the documents of this case cannot be deemed to be true, and there is no reasonable ground to believe so.
Therefore, there is no intention of defamation.
The defendant's assertion that the illegality should be excluded is with merit.