The case holding that there is no illegality of performance and illegality in the crime of defamation

It is difficult to view that there was a performance of Article 307 of the Criminal Act at the time of the act, and there is no illegality as it is reasonable to view that there was a public performance of Article 307 of the Criminal Act at the time of the act, even though a certain person talks that he/she has stolen his/her own apology twice in the face of the victim who stolen his/her orchard from the standpoint of the victim who stolen his/her orchard, and that he/she could normally have a social life.

Article 307 of the Criminal Act

Defendant

Defendant

Daegu District Court of the first instance (85dan41 delivered on April 1, 200)

The judgment of the court below is reversed.

The defendant shall be innocent.

The gist of the defendant's grounds for appeal was that the defendant, the victim of this case, around 12:0 on July 18, 1984, and the defendant's act was in accordance with the apology in the defendant's orchard located in the area of the defendant's orchard (definite name omitted), and that he did not know that the defendant's act was about 12:0 on July 18, 1984, and the defendant's act was about 12:0 on the part of the defendant's orchard (definite name omitted). However, he stated that the defendant's act was about 2 times, such as the (definite name omitted) Dong's indictment, and that the defendant's act was about 1's act was about harming the reputation of the non-indicted 1, but in the ordinary life of society, the court below found the defendant guilty, which affected the conclusion of the judgment by the application of the law and the judgment of the court below.

Therefore, according to the above statements made by the defendant to the police, the prosecution and this court, and the records of the statement made by the non-indicted 2, 3, 4, 5, and 6 of the non-indicted 1 prepared by the judicial police officer, the defendant had been living in the above inner dong, and had the non-indicted 4, who was his own possession of the defendant, manage it, since it was about 1984, it was difficult to find that the non-indicted 1 did not have any other way to see that the defendant had any other way to 8's act of using the above 8's old gate, and that the non-indicted 1 did not have any other way to 1's old gate, and that it was hard to find that the defendant had any other way to 1's old gate and 4's old gate because he had any other way to 8's old gate, and that it was hard to see that the defendant had any other way to 1's old gate and her old gate.

Therefore, in this case where there is no other evidence to prove the defendant guilty, the judgment of the court below which pronounced the defendant guilty shall not be reversed, so the judgment of the court below shall be reversed in accordance with Article 364 (6) of the Criminal Procedure Act, and the following decision shall be rendered again through pleading.

The summary of the facts charged in this case is as follows:

At around 12:30 on July 18, 1984 and around 12:30, the Defendant: (a) in a orchard located in Cheongong-gun, Chungcheongnam-gun, Chungcheongnambuk-gun; (b) “Non-Indicted 4, a person who is an offender, has taken a bath against him; and (c) following that, at around 08:30 on the following day, Non-Indicted 2, in the ancient field of Non-Indicted 2 located in the same Dong, the Defendant made the same speech to the Dong, thereby impairing the honor of the above Non-Indicted 1 by openly pointing out the facts, but this constitutes a case that does not constitute a crime as seen earlier; and (d) thus, the Defendant is acquitted pursuant to the former part of Article 325 of the Criminal Procedure Act.

It is so decided as per Disposition for the above reasons.

Judges Lee Jin (Presiding Judge)