beta
Text
The judgment of the court below is reversed.
The defendant shall be innocent.
Reasons
1. Summary of grounds for appeal;
A. The Defendant did not make the same remarks as the entries in the instant facts charged to H.
B. Although the Defendant made a statement to H as stated in the facts charged of this case, it does not constitute a performance, and the content of the statement is not a statement of fact, but a value judgment or evaluation, and does not meet the elements of the crime of defamation due to the lack of awareness of false facts and the intention of defamation.
2. Determination
A. On May 4, 2012, the Defendant, at around 20:40 on May 4, 2012, the charge of the instant case, called “F is a person who is replaced by fraud, is a person who attends a large number of female sexual intercourse,” and G is a person who is a parent of a funeral and is not good in going through a well-known life” by calls from E office located in Gangnam-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government to H with the victim F (54 years of age) and the victim G (56 years of age).
However, the above contents were not well known to the defendant.
Accordingly, the defendant has damaged the honor of victims by openly pointing out false facts.
B. The lower court found the Defendant guilty of the instant facts charged by compiling the evidence as indicated in its judgment.
C. First of all, we examine whether the Defendant made a statement to H as stated in the facts charged of this case.
The evidence duly adopted and examined by the lower court and the following circumstances recognized by the lower court, i.e., ① A was present as a witness on January 23, 2014, which was the fifth trial date of the lower court, and was long-term, and thus, H did not sufficiently memory the Defendant’s speech at around 20:40, May 4, 2012. However, the lower court stated to the effect that the Defendant was true at the time when the investigation was conducted at the investigative agency for a long time after the call with the Defendant, and ② H stated that the Defendant was true at the time when the investigation was conducted at the prosecutor’s office on November 1, 2012.