2012No3824 Defamation

A

Defendant

Cross-Appellee (prosecution), Kim Jae-sung (Trial)

Attorney H (National Assembly)

Incheon District Court Decision 2012 High Court Decision 2528 Decided December 11, 2012

July 19, 2013

The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

The Defendant refers to the victim E and there is no time for the Defendant to make a statement as stated in the facts charged (a factual error). Even if the Defendant made a statement as described in the facts charged, the Defendant believed that the Defendant had embezzled management expenses by reporting the request for the return of embezzlement funds prepared by the Magyoung Chairman I, and verifying the content thereof, and there was considerable reason to believe that the Defendant has embezzled management expenses, and that there was a reasonable reason to believe it was the victim’s embezzlement for the benefit of the entire occupants of the building (legal scenario). Therefore, the illegality is dismissed in accordance with Article 310 of the Criminal Act.

2. Determination

A. Judgment on the assertion of mistake of fact

According to the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court below, the defendant refers to the victim as stated in the facts constituting the crime in the judgment below, and "the author is the person who embezzled management expenses of KRW 30 million. Whether the author is the victim's speech, and if he believed the author's speech, he would file a criminal complaint against the crime of breach of trust." Thus, the defendant's factual errors are without merit.

B. Judgment on the misapprehension of legal principles

In order to punish a person by publicly alleging a fact by publicly alleging the fact in accordance with Article 310 of the Criminal Act, an act of impairing a person’s reputation is related to the public interest when objectively seen that the alleged fact is related to the public interest, and an actor should also indicate the fact for the public interest. Moreover, there is a reasonable reason to believe that the alleged fact is true or that at least the actor believed that it is true, and that there is reasonable reason to believe that it is true (see Supreme Court Decision 97Do88, Apr. 11, 1997).

According to the records, the fact that the victim embezzled management expenses of KRW 30 million is true or it is difficult to see that there is a reasonable ground to believe that the defendant believed that the fact was true and that there was a reasonable ground to believe it, and it is difficult to see that the defendant made a statement of fact for the public interest, so there is no reason to believe

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the defendant's appeal is dismissed as it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.

The presiding judge and judges;

Judge Choi Sung-soo

Judges' Senior Completion