2018 Gohap 131 Defamation

1. A;

2. B

Freeboard (prosecution), more than a record, teas, leaptables, leaptables, and Lee Sung-American (Public trial)

Law Firm spring (for the defendant)

Attorney Park Jae-soo

Law Firm Yang Jae-in (For the defendant)

[Defendant-Appellant]

Law Firm Shin (For the defendant)

Attorney Lee Hi-hoon, Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant

Law Firm Jeong (For the defendant)

Attorney Ha Jae-hee, Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant

Law Firm aiming at Law Firm (For the defendant)

Attorney Hah-hee, and Mank-sa

Law Firm THE FIRM (for the defendant)

[Defendant-Appellant]

Law Firm Standing (for the defendant)

[Defendant-Appellee]

Attorney Na-ho (for the defendant)

Attorney Lee Im-soo (for the defendant)

Law Firm Linsu (for the defendant)

Attorney Lee Jae-soo, Counsel for defendant-appellant

Law Firm Lee Gong (For the defendant)

Attorney Yang Hong-seok, Counsel for the defendant-appellant

August 29, 2018

Defendants are not guilty, and the summary of the judgment is publicly notified.

1. Summary of the facts charged

1. Status of the Defendants

Defendant A, under a contract with C, overall supervision over the production of so-called so-called “D1 – E” (hereinafter referred to as “the instant video”)’s scenarios and editing of video works. Defendant B, as the head of the video team, participated in the formation of contents, such as organizing a scenario with Defendant A and preparing a scenario with Defendant A, etc., assisting production through data collection, personal interview interference, etc., and the production of the instant video works is a producer of the instant video works in charge of holding a poster production and a society.

2. Details on the production and distribution of D video works;

From August 201, Defendants conspired to plan and produce DNA video works consisting of ‘D 1 parts - E', ‘D 2 parts - F', etc.

Defendant A prepared a scenario draft, and Defendant B produced DNA video works including the instant video works containing the negative descriptions of the G former president, by examining the content of the scenario draft written by Defendant A or supplementing some content.

around November 26, 2012, the Defendants screened the instant video works produced as above to the participants in the City Council of Video Works held in Jongno-gu Seoul, Jongno-gu, Seoul. From around November 26, 2012, the Defendants distributed the instant video works to the general public by open them to the public via the Internet such as J, etc.

3. 사자(死者)명예훼손 사실 G(1965. 7. 19. 사망) 전 대통령은 (①) 1920년 6월경 샌프란시스코에서, 부도덕한 성관계를 목적으로 여자를 데리고 주경계선을 넘는 것을 불법으로 규정한 맨법(The Mann Act) 위반으로 미국 수사관들에게 체포되거나, 여성인 'K'과 함께 범인식별용 얼굴 사진[소위 '머그샷'(Mug Shot)]을 찍힌 다음 미국 수사관들로부터 집중조사를 받은 사실이 전혀 없었다.

② There was no record in the form of G investigation record for the suspect in violation of the last law, and there was no fact that the former president was prosecuted for the charge of violating the last law. ③ Also, the investigation of the former president’s violation of the last law was conducted on June 21, 1920 without the cancellation of the former president’s reconcilation.

④ As such, there was no fact that the former president was prosecuted for violating the Act of the Republic of Korea, and there was no fact that the former president had been tried, and accordingly, there was no fact that the judgment was dismissed.

Nevertheless, the Defendants indicated false information different from the facts as follows through the caption, photograph, display, etc. of the instant video works.

① In June 1920, 1920, the author explained that “Isk S. S. S. S. investigators were bleeped.” Then, I suggested 3 copies, such as G former president, K, and G former president and K, at intervals of about 1 second, the photographed face pictures, etc., which were taken by the former president of G, K, and K, in sequence, and explained that “Iskn's investigators were not trusted. I was punished for a concentrated investigation.”

- Having presented the caption "THE INDIC MENT prosecution decision" and presented a picture of the G former president's face to identify the offender by explaining that "The U.S. investigators judged G as a bad fluorial fluor or not, in the end, prosecuted G."

③ 'G 박사가 샌프란시스코에 도착했지만 환영회는 취소됐다. 박사의 행동은 비밀을 요구한다는 통지가 있었다. L'라는 자막을 제시한 후, "일단, 대통령 환영회에 불참을 통보하고 그 이유는 비밀이라고 둘러댔다."라고 설명하였다. 4 "하와이에서 재판받고 싶어요."라는 자막을 제시한 다음, "재판은 하와이에서 받게 해달라고 사정했다.", "결국 그는 위기 상황에서 또 미꾸라지처럼 빠져나갔다."라고 설명하고, G과 K의 범인식별용 얼굴 사진을 제시하였고, "DISMISSED 기각결정"이라는 자막을 제시하였다.

As a result, the Defendants conspired to produce and distribute the instant video works, thereby impairing the honor of the former president by openly pointing out false facts.

II. Summary of the Defendants and Defense Attorneys

A. The instant video works do not constitute a specific fact that is subject to punishment in the crime of defamation, as an assessment of historical figures and cases.

B. The Defendants were investigated as a violation of the Many Law by the former president and K around 1920, and on June 20, 1920, the G President revolving was revoked, and the said case was concluded without any separate criminal punishment, based on the fact that “the instant video works were produced,” and the instant video works do not indicate false facts, and there was no intention to produce the instant video works on the basis of the Defendants’ awareness that false facts are revealed to the Defendants or based on false facts.

III. Judgment

1. On June 1920, the part explaining that “I am on a less S. S.S. investigator than S. S. S. S.C.,” presented 3 copies, such as G former president, K, and G former president and K, at intervals of about 1 second, a photograph of criminal identification face taken by the former president, K, and K, in order, and described that “I am close to the bill, the investigator did not believe. I was punished for a concentrated investigation.”

A. Determination

1) The part in which “G former president and K’s face pictures for identifying criminals cannot be seen as a statement of specific facts, and is merely a documentary expression method to indicate ‘the fact that the former president and K were investigated as a violation of the last law.’

2) We cannot conclude that the remainder is false in light of the criminal records in G’s trial history, sandfrancisco, and Haba, around June 1920 on the records. Furthermore, it is insufficient to view that the Defendants were aware of the remainder as false.

(b) Results of the jury verdict;

1) Whether false facts are false

○ No false facts shall be deemed to constitute ○: Seven persons.

○ The relevant article constitutes false facts: two persons.

2) The perception or intentional existence of false facts 2)

○ That all the Defendants are intentionally recognized: one person.

○ An intentional recognition of Defendant B: One person

2. A portion of the G former President’s identification photograph, stating that “INVSIG REPRT, Sus Pect: G and suspect G,” stating that “IEINDICTRN prosecution decision,” “IE INDICTRNNT prosecution decision,” and explaining that “In conclusion, U.S. investigators were indicted as to whether I would have judged G as a virtue of bad faith or not.”

A. Determination

1) The part in which “G former president and K’s face pictures for identifying criminals cannot be deemed to constitute a statement of specific facts, and is merely a documentary expression technique to indicate ‘the fact that the former president and K were investigated as a violation of the last law' in scarmen and visual sense.

2) On the records, around June 1920, G entered Haba in 1920 through sandfrancisco, and around August 1920, it appears that Haba and Ebaian entered into the investigation process, such as demanding Haba from the suspect G to the suspect G, and that this part of the remaining facts charged are false in light of the criminal behavior in G, K, etc., Haba, sand Francco, and Haba, etc. Furthermore, the evidence submitted by the prosecutor alone is insufficient to conclude that the Defendants recognized this part of the remainder of the facts charged as false. However, the result of the jury verdict is that the Defendants knew the remainder of the facts charged.

1) Whether false facts are false

(1) No false fact shall be deemed to constitute a false fact: Seven persons.

○ The relevant article constitutes false facts: two persons.

2) Whether false information was false or intentional

○ That all the Defendants are intentionally recognized: one person.

○ An intentional recognition of Defendant B: One person

3. 'G 박사가 샌프란시스코에 도착했지만 환영회는 취소됐다. 박사의 행동은 비밀을 요구한다는 통지가 있었다. L'라는 자막을 제시한 후, "일단, 대통령 환영회에 불참을 통보하고 그 이유는 비밀이라고 둘러댔다."라고 설명한 부분

A. Determination

On the record, it is recognized that the transshipment conference, which was scheduled in the sandbox, was not opened on June 20, 1920, and sandfranck. Therefore, the evidence submitted by the prosecutor alone cannot be deemed to be false.

(b) Results of the jury verdict;

○ No false facts may be deemed to constitute ○: Nine persons (compacted only)

4. The part suggesting the caption "I wish to be tried at you?", stating that "I would like to get a trial at you?" and "I would like to get a trial at you?", stating that "I would like to get a trial at you?" and suggesting a photograph of a criminal identification face of G and K, and a caption "decision on dismissal of DISDSESD".

A. Determination

1) The portion of “the face of the former president and K for identification of criminals” cannot be deemed to constitute a statement of specific facts, and is merely a documentary expression method to indicate “the fact that the former president and K were investigated as a violation of the last law.”

2) On the records, the investigation of the violation of the last law committed by the Ethical state G as a suspect, and among them, K drafted a written oath in Ethalian, and even if the term “M” was used in the publication of the NN university called “M,” it cannot be concluded that the remainder of the facts charged is false. Furthermore, the evidence submitted by the Prosecutor alone is insufficient to deem that the Defendants recognized this part of the remaining facts charged as false.

(b) Results of the jury verdict;

1) Whether false facts are false

○ No false facts shall be deemed to constitute ○: Seven persons.

○ The relevant article constitutes false facts: two persons.

2) Whether false information was false or intentional

○ That all the Defendants are intentionally recognized: one person.

○ An intentional recognition of Defendant B: One person

IV. Conclusion

Thus, the facts charged in this case constitute a case where there is no proof of facts constituting the crime, and thus, the court acquitted the Defendants pursuant to the latter part of Article 325 of the Criminal Procedure Act, and publicly announced the summary of the judgment against the Defendants pursuant to Article 58

The presiding judge, judge Kim Jong-tae

Judges Park Jae-ran

Judges Chief Democratic

1) In the course of deliberation, the facts charged can be determined solely on the part related to violation of 30 seconds of 2/30 only among the video works of this case.

There was no opinion that the decision should be made on the premise of the entire video works of this case, and a large number of jurors were sworn.

2) It is the result of checking opinions only among jurors who have presented opinions that constitute false facts, and the same is the same.