beta
Text
The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.
Reasons
Summary of Grounds for Appeal
As to defamation around May 2, 2014, according to the relationship between the Defendant and the victim at the time of the instant case and the victim’s remarks, the Defendant’s remarks can be recognized as a statement of specific facts that could undermine the victim’s social value or assessment. However, the lower court determined otherwise by misapprehending the legal doctrine on the statement of specific facts in the crime of defamation.
The sentence of the lower court (the suspended sentence of a fine of KRW 300,000) against the Defendant in an unreasonable sentencing is too uneasible and unfair.
Judgment
In full view of the facts and circumstances found by the lower court’s judgment as to the assertion of misapprehension of the legal doctrine and the evidence duly admitted and investigated by the lower court, the lower court’s judgment that found the Defendant not guilty of defamation around May 2, 2014 is justifiable and acceptable. In so doing, the lower court did not err by misapprehending the legal doctrine as otherwise alleged by the prosecutor.
The Defendant’s statement on the facts charged in the instant case (hereinafter “instant statement”) is merely an expression of doubt about the Defendant’s expenditure of the maintenance cost to the victim who is the president of the senior citizen center, who is the president of the senior citizen center. Moreover, it is difficult to view the said part of the statement as a statement of fact sufficient to undermine the social evaluation of the Plaintiff, on the grounds that the victim did not mention at all the possibility of misappropriation or embezzlement of public funds and did not suggest such possibility.
The defendant was in a position to ask questions concerning the operation of the building in the center for older persons to the victim in charge of general affairs as the chairperson of the center for older persons, and the fact that the defendant had asked several questions about the above part to the victim before that time (Evidence No. 48-49 of the evidence record) appears to have been the victim not to answer (Evidence No. 48-49 of the building in the center for older persons). The cost of maintaining the building in the center for older persons in this case