beta
Text
The judgment of the court below is reversed.
Defendant shall be punished by a fine of KRW 1,000,000.
The above fine shall not be paid by the defendant.
Reasons
1. Summary of grounds for appeal;
A. misunderstanding of facts or misunderstanding of legal principles, the Defendant believed that the ownership of real estate is not eligible to be the president of the partnership after the time stipulated in the articles of incorporation by F, the president of the redevelopment partnership, and that F, without the resolution of the general meeting of partners, added Articles 22-2 through 22-4 to the articles of incorporation. The Defendant’s act is dismissed as illegality.
B. The sentence of the lower court that is unfair in sentencing (2 million won) is too unreasonable.
2. Determination
A. In order for an act that defames a person by openly pointing out a fact-finding on the assertion of mistake of facts or misapprehension of the legal doctrine to not be punished, the alleged fact is related to the public interest when objectively viewed, and the actor also expresses facts for the public interest, and there is a reasonable reason to believe that the alleged fact is true or that at least the actor is true, and that there is reasonable reason to believe such fact.
According to the evidence duly admitted and examined by the lower court, F, the president of a cooperative, acquired the ownership of a building in a project district on September 9, 1992 and obtained the ownership of the building in the project district, and was qualified as the president of a cooperative prescribed by the articles of association; Article 22-2 through 22-4 of the articles of association was added by the resolution of the special general meeting of union members held on September 27, 2013; however, the Defendant acquired the ownership of real estate on June 9, 2016 at the general meeting of union members on February 24, 2014, and distributed printed articles, stating that F, without the resolution of the general meeting of union members, added the ownership of real estate on February 24, 2014, to union members. Meanwhile, the Defendant did not inquire or request the F or union to present related documents before distributing printed articles, and according to the above facts acknowledged.