Defendant

At the same time, he/she shall hold a public trial.

Attorney Park Dong-dong et al.

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for not more than ten months.

피고인은 2010. 3. 31. 10:00경 서울 종로구 내자동길 20 소재 서울지방경찰청 2층 대강당에서, 서울지방경찰청장으로서 서울지방경찰청 소속 5개 기동단 팀장급 398명을 상대로 기동부대 지휘요원 특별교양을 실시하던 중, 사실은 2009. 5. 23. 사망한 피해자 공소외 1 전 대통령과 관련한 거액이 들어 있는 차명계좌가 그 무렵 검찰수사 중에 발견된 사실이 없어 공소외 1 전 대통령이 그로 인해 자살한 것이 아니고 공소외 1 전 대통령의 배우자인 피해자 공소외 2가 이러한 차명계좌가 드러나는 것을 막기 위해 민주당에 공소외 1 전 대통령의 죽음과 관련한 특검을 하지 못하게 요청한 사실이 없음에도 불구하고, “작년 ◁통, 공소외 1 전 대통령 5월 23일 부엉이바위 사건 때 막 또 그 뒤로 뛰쳐나왔지 않습니까. 그런데 여러분들, 공소외 1 전 대통령 뭐 때문에 사망했습니까? 뭐 때문에 뛰어내렸습니까? 뛰어버린 바로 전날 계좌가 발견됐지 않습니까, 차명계좌가. 10만 원 짜리 수표가 타인으로, 거액의 차명계좌가 발표돼, 발견이 됐는데 그거 가지고 아무리 변명해도 이제 변명이 안 되지 않습니까? 그거 때문에 부엉이 바위에서 뛰어내린 겁니다.”, “그래서 특검 이야기가 나왔지 않습니까. 특검 이야기가 나와서 특검 하려고 그러니까 공소외 2 여사가 민주당에 이야기를 해서 특검을 못하게 한 겁니다. 그 해봐야 다 드러나게 되니까”라고 말하여 공연히 허위사실을 적시하여 피해자들의 명예를 훼손하였다.

1. Partial statement of the defendant;

1. Legal statement of the witness Nonindicted 13

1. Each protocol concerning the examination of the accused by the prosecution;

1. Each prosecutor’s statement concerning Nonindicted 39, 40, and 41

1. Each statement of the defendant;

1. An investigation report (in the case of ○○ Unemployment, Nonindicted 5’s order and relationship, accompanying a report on the results of the investigation of the case);

1. Investigation report (the analysis report related to the former President of the Republic of Korea);

1. Article applicable to criminal facts;

Article 307(2) of the Criminal Act (Defamation point), Article 308 ( point of Defamation)

1. Selection of punishment;

Imprisonment, respectively;

1. Aggravation for concurrent crimes;

Article 37 (former part of Article 37, Article 38 (1) 2, and Article 50 (Limits to Aggregate of Long-Term Punishment)

1. Whether the statement made by the defendant concerning the victims during his/her demotion is false or false;

In cases where the crime of defamation under Article 307(2) of the Criminal Act and the crime of defamation under Article 308 of the Act are prosecuted for the crime of defamation and the crime of defamation under Article 308 of the Act, the prosecutor shall actively prove that the facts disclosed are false, and the fact that there is no proof of truth cannot be established by the publication of false facts. However, in determining whether or not the above facts have satisfied the above burden of proof, the prosecutor who is the active party should prove the absence of a specific act at a specified period and specific place without reasonable doubt. However, it is impossible for the prosecutor to prove the absence of a specific act at a specified period and place, while it is difficult to prove and prove the existence of a fact more easily, such circumstance is considered in determining whether the prosecutor fulfilled the burden of proof, and therefore, a person who actively asserts that there is no suspicion should be 205,000,000,000 won or more, and a prosecutor shall be 205,000,000,000 won or more.

(a) Whether or not it has been discovered that the name account was found before running, or that the name account was .... 100,000 won check was announced to another person, that a large amount of borrowed name account was discovered, and any vindication that was made with the fact that it was found does not have any justification? Because of that, the part that "a large number of fake check was dried up in the upper part?"

1) The Defendant vindicates to the following purport that this part is true.

On March 31, 2010, while conducting special culture against the 398 team leader leader leader leader leader leader leader at the 2nd lecture of the Seoul Metropolitan Police Agency, the Defendant mentioned the above contents in contingency during a lecture to make appropriate response to the concerns that illegal violent demonstration would re-refilled again on May 23, 2010. The content of the lecture was expressed from the person who was in a position to know the investigation situation of the large prosecutor during the period of his lectures. However, the Defendant’s speech was defined as being due to the reasons for the 398 team leader leader leader leader at the 2nd lecture of the Seoul Metropolitan Police Agency, and it was found that the Defendant deposited the 100,000 won check in the name of the 2nd executive secretary at the 2nd session, and that the Defendant deposited the 100,000 won check at the 2nd day after his deposit in the 2nd account.

However, the Defendant did not have a relation to USD 6,400,000, which was remitted to Nonindicted 1’s relatives on June 12, 2009 with respect to Nonindicted 5’s political relationship and senior business.

2) Determination

First, it is impossible to objectively understand the reasons that the former president was in a position to know the content of the investigation of the Department of Health and the Department of Public Prosecutor’s Science and Technology, unless there exist any circumstances such as where he was in a position to know the fact that he was in a position to know the fact that the former president was due to the fact that he was in a borrowed account, and it is merely impossible to objectively know the reasons that he was in a position to see, unless he was in a time when he was in his possession. However, it is nothing more than the presentation of a written lawsuit and it cannot be deemed that the Defendant believed that he was in mind that he was aware of the fact that the former president was in a position to know the fact that he was in a large number of borrowed accounts. However, as seen later, as seen earlier, it would be difficult to determine whether there was a false fact in this part depending on whether the discovery of a large amount of borrowed account was false or not.

Next, in full view of the above evidence, such as a health check and investigation report (the analysis report on the investigation records related to the former president of the Republic of Korea) as to whether a large amount of 100,000 won check was discovered before the last day of his outstanding check, the following facts were revealed: (a) on the 30 accounts in the name of the executive secretary and the total of 10,000 won of the check from June 1, 2005 to April 2009; and (b) on the 100,000 won of the check account, the fact that the Defendant’s deposit in the 200,000 won of the check account was not revealed; (c) on the result of the account tracking, Nonindicted 3 and 4 accounts from July 2005 to October 108, 2008, the sum of the deposit in the 200,000 won of the check account was not 1.77,000,000 won of the check account.

3) As to this, the Defendant and the defense counsel asserted that four accounts, such as the one-time bank branch (Account Number 2 omitted), the one-time bank (Account Number 3 omitted), the another-time bank account (Account Number 3 omitted), the one-time bank office branch (Account Number 4 omitted), the one-time bank office (Account Number 4 omitted), and the one-time bank account (Account Number 5 omitted) (Account Number 5 omitted) (hereinafter “the one-time bank office account of Nonparty 4”) and the one-time bank dispatch branch (Account Number 5 omitted) account of the National Bank (hereinafter “the one-time bank dispatch branch account of Nonparty 4”). In light of the following, it is reasonable to view that the Defendant’s account falls under the second-time bank account of the Defendant’s lecture.

① From June 1, 2005 to March 31, 2009, Nonindicted 3’s new bank account was deposited in KRW 519,589,832. From June 1, 2005 to January 28, 2009, Nonindicted 4’s deposit account was KRW 262,454,435. From June 1, 2005 to January 28, 2009, Nonindicted 4’s deposit account was deposited in KRW 372,023,419, Nonindicted 4’s national bank account was deposited in KRW 372,419, and Nonindicted 4’s account was deposited in KRW 3636,475,6361,641,6365,637,647,61,675, and the total amount of deposit in the account was paid to Nonindicted 4’s new bank account was deposited in KRW 372,375,416,3675,467.

② From June 9, 2005 to February 4, 2009, cash transfer transactions from June 9, 2005 to June 4, 2009 to six accounts of Non-Indicted 3 and 4 including the above four accounts are deemed to have been deposited in the passbook after being provided cash in addition to salary. The transaction during the above trading period reaches KRW 79,310,000 in total over 62 times.

③ 공소외 3, 4의 계좌에는 송금 받은 돈을 그 즉시 제3자에게 송금하거나 현금을 입금한 후 그 금액만큼 타인에게 송금하는 등 자금원천이나 송금인을 숨기거나 자금을 세탁하기 위한 것으로 보이는 거래가 다수 발견되었다. 즉, 공소외 3의 신한은행 계좌에 공소외 23으로부터 2005. 6. 1. 현금 1,500만 원, 2005. 6. 23. 현금 200만 원이 입금되었고 그 직후 공소외 3은 기아자동차 계좌로 16,503,240원을 송금하였다. 공소외 3의 신한은행 계좌에 2007. 10. 23. 적요 란에 “◎◎◎◎◎◎"으로 기재된 5,000만 원이 입금 되었다가 그 직후 공소외 3의 다른 계좌로 폰뱅킹을 통하여 이체되었고, 2007. 12. 31. 역시 적요 란에 “◎◎◎◎◎◎"으로 기재된 2,500만 원이 입금 되었다가 그 직후 공소외 22 명의의 국민은행 계좌로 송금되었으며, 2008. 5. 6. 10:04경 ~ 10:07경 사이에 공소외 22 명의의 기업은행 계좌에서 500만원씩 4회에 걸쳐 합계 2,000만원이 송금되었다가 같은 날 10:55경~10:56경 사이에 공소외 3의 국민은행 계좌로 즉시 송금되었고, 2008. 12. 23. 15:27경 현금 1,000만원이 입금되었다가 15:57경 공소외 42 명의의 우리은행 계좌로 송금되었다. 또한 2005. 6. 9. 14:00경 공소외 4의 국민은행 광화문지점 계좌에 497만 원이 현금으로 입금되었다가 같은 날 15:00경 공소외 4의 국민은행 청운동지점 계좌로 이체되었으며, 공소외 4 명의의 우리은행 잠실남지점 계좌가 2005. 7. 13. 개설되어 1,000만 원이 입금되었다가 15일 후 계좌가 해지되어 전액 출금되었고, 2005. 11. 28. 같은 지점에 다시 개설된 계좌에 2,700만 원이 입금된 후 이틀 뒤 해지되었으며 2008. 4. 4. 계좌가 개설되어 600만 원 입금한 뒤 같은 달 24. 해지되었다. 공소외 4 명의의 우리은행 부산 대연동지점 계좌에 2008. 11. 18. 현금 1,000만 원이 입금되었는데 당일 16:00경 공소외 1 대통령의 아들 공소외 14 명의의 계좌로 송금되었다.

4) Determination

공소외 3의 신한은행 계좌, 공소외 4의 국민은행 광화문지점, 청운동지점, 송파지점 계좌 등 4개 계좌가 피고인이 언급한 거액의 차명계좌에 해당하는지 여부에 관하여 살피건대, 수사보고(공소외 1 전 대통령 관련 수사기록 분석보고), 증인 공소외 3, 4의 각 증언 등을 종합하면, 공소외 23은 공소외 2 여사의 언니로서 2005. 6.경 기아자동차 차량을 대신 구매하여 주면서 공소외 23으로부터 2005. 6.경 2차례에 걸쳐 1,700만 원을 입금 받아 기아자동차 계좌로 16,503,240원을 송금한 사실, 공소외 2 여사가 심부름 등 지시하는 사항을 이행하기 위하여 수시로 현금 등을 지급받아 자신의 계좌에 입금한 뒤 이체하거나 지출한 사실, 공소외 22는 공소외 3 비서관의 동생으로 ‘◎◎◎◎◎◎’이라는 회사를 운영하였는데 공소외 3이 전세보증금으로 사용하기 위하여 공소외 22로부터 돈을 빌리면서 2007. 10. 23. 5,000만 원을, 2007. 12. 31. 2,500만 원을 입금 받아 자신의 국민은행 계좌로 송금한 사실, 공소외 4는 청와대 제2부속실 행정관으로서 공소외 2 여사의 관저 청소와 물건 구입, 금전출납 등 심부름을 하는 업무를 담당하였는데 근무하는 동안 공소외 2 여사가 물품을 구입하거나 경비를 지출할 필요가 있다거나, 은행에 입금할 필요가 있는 경우 공소외 4에게 심부름을 시키면서 현금 등을 지급하였고 공소외 4는 현금을 입금한 뒤 인터넷으로 거래하거나 다른 계좌로 이체하여 주는 등 지시에 따라 집행한 사실, 공소외 3 비서관이 개인적으로 부탁하여 받은 돈을 자신의 계좌에 입금하였다가 공소외 3의 계좌에 입금하기도 한 사실, 공소외 4가 청와대에 재직하는 동안 공소외 4의 계좌에는 공소외 4 소유의 아파트를 판 대금 중 8,700만 원이 입금되기도 하였고, 공소외 4의 시어머니와 시누이들이 개인적으로 입금한 돈도 있었으며, 정기적금을 만기해약하면서 입금 받은 돈도 있었던 사실, 공소외 2 여사의 심부름으로 현금 1,000만 원을 받아 공소외 4 명의의 우리은행 부산 대연동지점 계좌에 2008. 11. 18. 입금하였다가 심부름에 따라 당일 16:00경 공소외 2 여사의 아들인 공소외 14 명의의 계좌로 송금한 사실, 그 이외의 대부분의 거래는 1만원 미만부터 많아야 수 백 만원의 입출금이 반복되고 있는데 대부분 일상적인 용도로 사용처가 구체적으로 기재되어 있으며, 계좌의 잔고는 대체로 수백만원에 불과하였고, 2005. 6. 1.부터 2009. 3. 31.까지 가장 많을 때가 8,302만 원 정도였던 사실을 인정할 수 있다. 이러한 인정사실들을 종합하면, 공소외 3, 4의 계좌에 입금된 것 중 가장 큰 금액이 5,000만 원, 8,500만 원 정도이고 그것도 모두 공소외 3, 4 개인적인 전세보증금 내지는 아파트 매각대금이며, 그 밖의 것들도 공소외 3, 4의 개인적인 입출금이거나 공소외 2 여사의 심부름이나 지시에 따라 현금 등으로 받아 입금하였다가 송금하거나 지출한 것들이며, 공소외 3과 공소외 4는 청와대 제2부속실 비서관과 행정관으로 공소외 2 여사의 일정수행 보좌업무를 하면서 공식적인 일뿐만 아니라 사적인 일도 수행하였는데 위 계좌 내역 중 상당 부분은 공소외 2 여사가 비서관과 행정관을 통하여 청와대에서 공적인 비용을 집행하고 사적인 지출을 하면서 비서관과 행정관이 자신들의 계좌를 이용한 것이고, 위 4개의 계좌들의 2005. 6. 1.부터 2009. 3. 31.까지 총 입금액이 16억 원을 넘는다고 하여도 약 4년 동안 위와 같은 내용의 입출금이 반복된 것에 불과하여 객관적으로 위 계좌들이 피고인이 말하는 거액의 차명계좌에 해당한다고는 도저히 볼 수 없다.

B. The portion of “Iskn't have a unique interview. Iskn't have a unique interview. Isn't have to talk about Nonindicted 2's talk about a democratic party so that Iskn't have a unique interview. Isk't have to see it. Is't have to see it.”

With regard to this part, the defendant merely took place from a person who is in a position to know the investigation status of the public prosecutor's body at the time when he was demoted, and without specifying the related persons and methods, the defendant merely introduces statements without disclosing who are believed to be in a position to know about the investigation status of the public prosecutor's body, and without disclosing who is in a position to the public prosecutor's body. Thus, in light of the above legal principles, the defendant's explanation cannot be viewed as having the body to the extent that the public prosecutor can prove the falsity of the alleged facts of this part of the public prosecutor's office. Meanwhile, as acknowledged above, so long as the statement of the fact that a large amount of 100,000 won check was discovered is recognized as false, it cannot be viewed that this part of the statement was made to prevent the public prosecutor from disclosing the name account on the premise of the discovery of the name account, and thus, the defendant cannot be viewed as having presented any new evidence that there is a suspicion that there is a new fact as a public prosecutor's failure to present the above fact.

C. Sub-decision

Therefore, this part of the defendant's and defense counsel's assertion that the defendant's statement about victims during his/her demotion is without merit.

2. Whether defamation was intentional or not;

The defendant asserts that as the director of the Seoul Local Police Agency, he believed the contents of his opinions as facts from the persons who were believed at the time, and that he was demoted to have the members of the police station be forced to cope with the illegal demonstration, and that he did not have any intention to impair the honor of the former president of the first president of the Seoul Local Police Agency or the second female.

The purpose of defamation or defamation is not to commit a crime of purpose, and it is sufficient to recognize the fact that the perception of defamation does not need to undermine the victim's social assessment. According to the evidence above, the defendant appeared in the place where he lives with a person who is believed to have been in trust or an individual person, and even without examining specific data or contents from the defendant's point of view, it can be recognized that the defendant officially made an official lectures against the police officer in the name of several hundreds of persons without examining specific data or contents. Thus, at least there was an incomplete intention on defamation against the defendants.

3. Whether it falls under Article 310 of the Criminal Act

Although Article 310 of the Criminal Act argues that the primary motive or purpose of the defendant is solely for the public interest and it does not constitute a crime under Article 310 of the Criminal Act, Article 300 of the Criminal Act applies to defamation by a statement of fact under Article 307(1) of the Criminal Act, and defamation by a person who expresses false facts under Article 307(2) of the Act, and defamation by another person under Article 308 of the Criminal Act is not applicable, and the above assertion

The instant crime was committed by the Defendant, who is in the position of the Seoul National Police Agency at the time of demotion, by pointing out false facts, such as the discovery of a large amount of borrowed accounts without any specific grounds, thereby impairing the honor of Nonindicted 1 former president and Nonindicted 2 female, the denial thereof.

In addition to the case of USD 6,40,00,00, which was remitted to Non-Indicted 5's relatives at the time due to the Defendant's speech and behavior, despite the discovery of a large amount of borrowed accounts, the prosecutor's investigation on a large amount of borrowed accounts led to continuous doubt, such as making the people aware of the fact that the investigation on a large amount of borrowed accounts was interrupted.

The contents of official lectures made by the Defendant, not only one individual but also the incumbent Seoul National Police Agency Commissioner General of the National Police Agency, but also the former Seoul National Police Agency, could have been delivered not only at the time of demotion but also at the time of the subsequent communication to the public. Any person, who is not a basis for the Defendant’s lecture, acts as a force information that could not readily readily conclude that the contents of the Defendant’s lecture are false, making it difficult for the victims to easily escape from damage caused by the Defendant’s false accusation. Furthermore, the State theory was divided between the people supporting the former president and the people criticizing Nonindicted 1, and the prosecution was subject to the prosecution’s suspicion and criticism more than necessary for the people. Such words of the Defendant are different from the expression of opinions by the former president, who is an official official, and expressed opinions by any suspicion.

One of the features that people with a high-ranking social reputation should have is to maintain consistency and take responsibility for it. The contents of the lectures, such as the facts charged, are first mentioned by the defendant in our society.

Nevertheless, the Defendant appears to have expressed the position that “as long as he did not accurately know the contents of the prosecutor’s investigation,” and that it did not have any particular ground upon the lectures when the Defendant was determined by the Commissioner General of the National Police Agency and when considering the contents of the instant lectures in the press, the Defendant considered that he did not have any specific ground. On December 26, 2010 after he was appointed to the Commissioner General of the National Police Agency, the position was changed to the position that there was a meaningful and serious ground for putting a large amount of water out. As the Defendant was investigated by the prosecutor’s complaint on June 201, the Defendant was aware of the existence of the borrowed account from a person who was at a location where he could know the situation at the time of investigation, and that he was aware of the existence of the borrowed account as a fact, and that it was completely and specifically included in the prosecutor’s account in a large amount of 100 million won when he was made up to 100 million won.

In this court, as stated in the first summons in the prosecutor's office, the following arguments were presented at the last day of pleading. At the last day of pleading, those who are in a position to know the situation of the investigation at the time of the investigation, and who are believed to have been extremely excellent in information capacity than the defendant, are strong contents. After the demotion, the court reversed the position of the reasons why the prosecutor made a statement as to the details of the lectures, as they were stated from the person who retired from the investigation practice at the time of December 20, 2010, while he was subject to the first summons investigation at the prosecutor's office.

The attitude of the defendant is nothing more than that of maintaining consistency, and it is difficult to find out what the position of the defendant with respect to the circumstances in which the alternative defendant came to know of the contents of the lecture after the demotion.

Furthermore, the Defendant, at this court, raised doubt that a long term check of KRW 100,00 has been deposited in the account of Nonindicted 3 and 4, and the check and check issued along with the check are related to the borrowed account. Moreover, even in the case of Nonindicted 10,000 won violation of the Foreign Exchange Management Act, the Defendant, even though 40,000 dollars of the down payment was deposited in the account of the seller’s seat, without grasping the specific facts, is asserting that there was a borrowed account of USD 400,000,000 which was deposited in the account of the seller.

On the other hand, it seems that the defendant did not directly go to the victim until this court, and that the defendant did not go to the victim, and that the defendant did not go to the victim, while considering the position that the contents of the lecture are not false but all facts, it is contradictory to the attitude of the media or this court that the victim will go to the victim, and thus, the victim's damage recovery has not been made at all because it was accepted as a reflection or apology of the genuine meaning.

Therefore, even if the defendant was a person who was in the position of the police at the time and was not careful, the defendant's intention to make a false statement was not prudent, and thereafter, even if he was judged to have known about the police's highest position, he is aware that he still has a social influence and is in a position of responsibility, and without any specific basis until this court has reached this court, he should be held liable corresponding thereto.

As above, it is more bad that the defendant still leaves a state of social suspicion and anti-confluence than publicly announcing false facts, and if the defendant considers that the contents of his lectures are not false but objective grounds exist, it is necessary to clarify the basis for the public interest rather than reducing the organization of the individual and the organization thereof, and to clarify the substance thereof for the purpose of the public interest. If the defendant is judged as false and it is difficult to reveal the objective grounds, it is necessary to present a clear attitude, such as recognizing that the defendant was demoted rather than the fact, and directly apologys the victim by the high-ranking public official, it is the minimum degree that the defendant should take against the citizen.

However, it shall be considered that the term of punishment should be determined by favorable circumstances, in consideration of the facts and contents of the instant crime, and the circumstances after the instant crime, etc., in consideration of all the factors leading up to and details of the instant crime and the circumstances after the instant crime.

Judges Lee Sung-ho