beta
Text
The judgment of the court below is reversed.
Defendant
A shall be punished by a fine of 5,00,000 won, and a fine of 4,00,000 won, respectively.
Reasons
1. Summary of grounds for appeal;
A. The lower court, which recognized the facts charged by mistake or misapprehension of legal doctrine, did not err by misapprehending the facts or by misapprehending the legal doctrine on the following grounds. A) As indicated in the facts charged, there was no fact that the Defendants insultd the victim G or by indecent act by the Defendant B.
B) Although the Defendants posted a statement on the Internet camera containing the same content as the facts charged, the content thereof is true, as well as for the public interest, and thus, it does not constitute a crime of defamation. Although the Defendants asserted that the lower court erred by omitting judgment on the grounds for the illegality of defamation, even if such determination was omitted, it does not constitute a ground for reversal in itself, and it does not constitute a ground for reversal only in cases where the aforementioned assertion affected the conclusion of the judgment due to the grounds for reversal (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 92Do2047, Dec. 22, 1992).
B. 2) As seen in paragraph (d) of the same Article, there is no reason to reverse the judgment of the court below, even if there is an omission of judgment, as alleged by the Defendants.
2) The lower court’s sentence of unreasonable sentencing (a fine of KRW 8,00,000 against Defendant A, and a fine of KRW 7,00,000 against Defendant B is too unreasonable.
B. The above-mentioned sentence of the prosecutor is too unhued and unreasonable.
2. Judgment on the misunderstanding of facts or misapprehension of legal principles by the Defendants
A. The following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and examined by the lower court, namely, victim G, F, and E, stated to the effect that the Defendants were, or were to have been, insulting the victim as stated in the facts charged from the investigation stage to the lower court. Although the Defendants were partly inconsistent with each of the said three statements.