beta
Text
The judgment below
The Defendants’ part of not guilty as to defamation is reversed.
The facts charged of this case.
Reasons
1. According to the records of this case regarding the Defendants’ appeal, the Defendants appealed against the lower judgment on January 19, 2015, and filed an appeal. Defendant A was served on February 7, 2015; Defendant B was served on February 12, 2015; Defendant C was served on each of the notification of the receipt of the trial records and each of the notification of the appointment of a public defender on February 10, 2015; the Defendants did not submit the statement of grounds for appeal or request the appointment of a public defender within 20 days from the deadline for submitting the statement of grounds for appeal under Article 361-3(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act; the Defendants did not state the grounds for appeal even in the petition of appeal submitted by the Defendants; nor did they find any grounds for ex officio investigation on the records.
2. Summary of grounds for appeal by a prosecutor;
A. As to the defamation of the Defendants, the lower court determined that the illegality of the Defendants’ defamation by a statement of fact against the Defendants was excluded on the premise that the Defendants publicly alleged true facts against the victim E church. However, since the Defendants alleged false facts, the lower court’s judgment on a different premise was erroneous in misunderstanding of facts (the first prosecutor prosecuted the Defendants as the point of defamation by a statement of fact, but after the judgment of the lower court, the lower court modified this part of the facts charged on the ground that the Defendants’ defamation by a statement of false facts was erroneous (the first prosecutor was indicted against the Defendants by the point of defamation by a statement of fact, but after the judgment of the lower court
2) As to Defendant B’s insult, Defendant B’s statement as stated in this part of the facts charged constitutes a sacrific expression beyond the degree of criticism of a legitimate religion, and even if the above Defendant had sufficiently recognized the intent of insult, the lower court acquitted Defendant B of this part of the facts charged. In so determining, the lower court erred by misapprehending the legal doctrine on the facts charged.
B. The sentence of the lower court (a fine of KRW 1,00,000) against the Defendants is too uneased.