Text
The defendant's appeal is dismissed.
Reasons
1. Summary of grounds for appeal;
A. In regard to the facts charged Nos. 1 and 2 of the facts charged, the summary of the statement stated in the facts charged is that “the victim, who is the C personnel management team, sold his own land as his own land as the workplace housing association, and agreed upon the exercise of the housing association and the head of the housing association, if he is a joint and several surety.” As such, the Defendant’s above statement is consistent with the facts in important parts, and is recognized as a public interest, and thus does not constitute a crime of defamation. In addition, it is difficult to deem that the Defendant’s statement in this part of the facts charged as to Nos. 3 and 4 of the facts charged is merely a statement to the effect that the above contents were written in the instant case, and thus, it is difficult to deem that the victim’s reputation was damaged. 2) The Defendant was unfairly dismissed, and the Defendant was dismissed from his office with unfair disciplinary action,
It is difficult to view that the reputation of the victim was damaged because it is merely an expression of the individual's opinion rather than an expression of the defendant.
B. The sentence imposed by the lower court on the Defendant (one year of imprisonment, one year of suspended sentence, one year of fine, 300,000) is excessively unreasonable.
2. Determination
A. 1) In a case where the important part of the facts alleged in the crime of defamation by a false representation is consistent with objective facts as to the assertion of mistake of facts, there is a little difference or exaggeration in the detailed contents from the truth.
Although it cannot be viewed as a false fact, when determining whether the alleged fact is false, it should be determined whether the part that is not consistent with the objective fact is an important part by examining the purport of the entire content of the alleged fact.
Supreme Court Decision 2003Do2137 Decided April 29, 2005