beta
Text
The defendant's appeal is dismissed.
Reasons
1. Summary of grounds for appeal;
A. The Kakao Stockholm message sent by the Defendant by mistake of facts or misapprehension of legal principles is not a statement of facts, but rather an expression of opinion containing value judgment or assessment. In addition, the Defendant pointed out the act of unfair election campaign by sending the above message, and it does not slander the candidate.
B. The content of the message sent by the Defendant is consistent with the truth, and it is not illegal that the Defendant sent the message for the public interest.
Nevertheless, the court below found the defendant guilty on the charges of violating the Act on the Election of Public Officials, and there is an error of law by misunderstanding the facts, or by misunderstanding the legal principles on “defluence” or “defluence of illegality”
B. The sentence sentenced by the lower court to the Defendant (an amount of KRW 2.5 million) is too unreasonable.
2. Determination
A. As to the assertion of misunderstanding the facts or misapprehension of the legal doctrine, the Defendant asserted to the same effect as the grounds for appeal in this part. The lower court rejected the above assertion in detail on the content of the argument and its determination under the title “determination on the assertion of the Defendant and the defense counsel” in the judgment.
In light of the circumstances and relevant legal principles admitted by the court below according to the evidence duly admitted and examined, it is sufficiently recognized that the defendant slanders in the election of the National Assembly member of the 20th National Assembly by openly sending out the Kakakao Stockholm messages three times in order immediately before the election for the purpose of preventing the election from being elected. The defendant's act cannot be viewed as "when it is true and is related to the public interest" as stipulated in the proviso of Article 251 of the Act on the Election of Public Offices. Thus, the judgment of the court below to the same purport is justified.