beta
Text
All appeals by the Defendants are dismissed.
Reasons
1. Summary of the Defendants’ grounds for appeal
A. The Defendants’ assertion of mistake of facts or misapprehension of legal principles is all true, and the illegality is dismissed in accordance with Article 310 of the Criminal Act, since it is for the public interest.
Even if the facts were not true, the Defendants did not have intention since they did not recognize that they were false, and could be mistaken for the fact, and the Defendants committed the above acts for the public interest, so the Defendants’ illegality as a legitimate act is excluded.
Nevertheless, the lower court erred by misapprehending the facts or by misapprehending the legal principles, which affected the conclusion of the judgment, which found all of the facts charged.
B. The lower court’s respective punishment (a fine of KRW 1.5 million) imposed on the Defendants is too unreasonable.
2. Determination
A. In the crime of defamation under Article 307(2) of the Criminal Act regarding the assertion of mistake of facts and misapprehension of legal principles, the fact that the public information was false is proven by the prosecutor actively, and the fact that there is no proof that the public information was true cannot be established by the publication of false facts.
However, in determining whether or not the above burden of proof has been fulfilled, a prosecutor who is the active party shall prove the absence of a specific act at a specified period and at a specified place, as well as the active existence of a certain fact. However, proving the absence of a specific act at a specified place is not possible without reasonable doubt. However, it is difficult for a prosecutor to prove the absence of a fact that is not specified in a specified period and space in social norms, while it is more easy to assert and prove the existence of a fact. Therefore, such circumstance should be considered in determining whether the prosecutor fulfilled the burden of proof. Accordingly, there is suspicion against a person who asserts that there was no suspicion.