beta
Text
The defendant's appeal is dismissed.
Reasons
1. Grounds for appeal;
A. Error of facts and misapprehension of legal principles (1) The judgment of the court below recognizes the criminal facts that have not been prosecuted beyond the scope stated in the facts charged, and thus is unlawful
(2) The facts of defamation against victims guilty of the lower judgment (hereinafter “the instant defamation facts”) are somewhat different in specific expressions or may have a director, but in light of the overall purport, entry of true facts in light of the overall purport, and the Defendant is informed to the public for the benefit of the public, so the illegality is dismissed pursuant to Article 310 of the Criminal Act.
(3) Even if the instant defamation fact was false, the Defendant’s mistake of false facts as true facts and stated them for the public interest, and thus, the illegality is excluded pursuant to Article 310 of the Criminal Act.
B. The lower court’s sentence of unreasonable sentencing (fine 2,00,000) is too unreasonable.
2. Determination
A. (1) According to the judgment of the court below on the assertion of mistake of facts and misapprehension of legal principles (A) determination on whether the crime was established beyond the scope of the facts charged, the prosecutor on October 29, 2012, (a) was the full-time death of the previous E church, and the complainant is the member of the E church. The criminal suspect is not a member of the E church in the H apartment and commercial building at the Namyangyang-ju city around June 2012. The F wood company is the ender, the F wood company is the ender, the sexual intercourse is the backer, and the sexual intercourse is the backer of the EM. F wood company. The F wood company reaches the corruption of the unfair corruption, and the EI TW is the close, and the EIW is the previous part of the above Gu's name in the above apartment and commercial building (hereinafter referred to as the "former part of this case").
) In a way of distribution, the reputation of the complainant was undermined by publicly alleging false facts. The indictment was instituted with the content of the charge, but the prosecution was made, and ② on March 6, 2013, indicating the specific facts.