beta
Text
The judgment of the court below is reversed.
The defendant is not guilty, and the summary of the judgment of innocence is publicly notified.
Reasons
1. Summary of grounds for appeal;
A. Legal reasoning is that the Defendant, by misapprehending the legal doctrine, attached the printed matter containing the same content as the facts charged to the union bulletin board, etc.
However, it was for the public interest to prevent the act of embezzlement or breach of trust of the president of the association and to preserve the property of the association in the situation where D, the president of the association, is raising an issue related to the financing execution of the association or settlement of accounts with the management entity for improvement.
Although the illegality should be ruled out by Article 310 of the Criminal Code, the judgment of the court below which found the defendant guilty of the facts charged is erroneous in the misapprehension of legal principles.
B. The sentence that the court below rendered unfair in sentencing is unreasonable.
2. Article 310 of the Criminal Act regarding the assertion of misunderstanding of legal principles refers to “the time when the alleged facts relate solely to the public interest” refers to the public interest when objectively seen, and an actor is also required to explicitly state the facts for the public interest. It includes not only the public interest of the State, society, and other general public, but also the interest and interest of a specific social group or its entire members. Whether the alleged facts relate to the public interest or not shall be determined by comparing and considering the contents and nature of the alleged facts in question, the scope of the other party to whom the relevant facts were published, and the method of expression, and the degree of infringement of reputation that may be damaged or damaged by the expression. If the principal motive or purpose of the actor is for the public interest, the application of Article 310 of the Criminal Act may not be ruled out lawfully by adopting the aforementioned legal principles and evidence (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2006Do2074, Dec. 14, 2007).