beta
Text
The defendant's appeal is dismissed.
Reasons
1. Summary of the grounds for appeal (misunderstanding of legal principles or factual errors);
A. As to defamation, the Defendant believed that the victim was sentenced to a fine of KRW 10 million, so there was no awareness of false facts, and the reason why the notice was written is for the public interest. Therefore, the judgment of the court below convicting the Defendant of the above facts, which erred by misapprehending the legal principles, or by misapprehending the legal principles, which affected the conclusion of the judgment.
B. As to the insult, each of the Defendant’s notices is not intended to insult the victim by specifying the victim, but is intended for many and unspecified persons. Even if it can be seen as referring to the victim, it is justifiable to view the victim as belonging to the scope of freedom of expression, which is within the scope of freedom of expression, but the lower court erred by misapprehending the facts or by misapprehending the legal doctrine, which affected the conclusion
2. Determination
A. Based on the evidence duly admitted and investigated by the lower court, the lower court’s determination that found the Defendant guilty of this part of the facts charged is justifiable, in addition to the following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly admitted and investigated by the lower court and the lower court on the grounds of the conviction on this part of the facts charged, and the Defendant’s allegation in this part of the facts charged is without merit.
(1) The Defendant asserted to the effect that the Defendant had mistakenly known that the Defendant was sentenced to a fine of KRW 10 million to the victim in the first instance trial (201DaMa1698) of the Seoul Central District Court 2012No2896 case (hereinafter “related defamation case”) on or around March 27, 2012. However, the Defendant’s summary order case of KRW 10 million as stated in the above notice was a summary order case with the content that AE et al. interfered with the business of the 323th board of directors, and that there is no relation to the relevant defamation case.