[ad_1]
Shin Sang-cheol, a former member of the Cheonan Joint Civil-Military Investigation Committee, raised suspicions about the Cheonan government’s announcement that North Korea was making, and was declared acquitted after 10 years of prosecution.
On the 6th, the Fifth Criminal Division of the Seoul High Court (the presiding judge Kang-yeol Yoon) reversed the court ruling in the sentencing trial of former Cheonan Shin Sang-cheol Military Civil Joint Investigation Commissioner, who was charged with libel related to the Cheonan ship, and sentenced to acquittal. The lower court (first trial) judged some of the two-year probation convictions in August for a former Shin Shin member for about four years. However, the court accepted the ruling of the first court of first instance and the Joint Corps of the Civil Army that the Cheonan case was sunk due to the explosion of a torpedo fired by North Korea.
Judge Kang-yeol Yoon said in the judgment summary: “It is recognized that the Cheonan ship was cut off and sunk due to the shock wave and bubble effect caused by the contactless underwater explosion caused by the North Korean torpedo attack, and the defendant’s claim that he collided with a submarine after running aground is unacceptable. ” It is difficult to say that this post was published to smear the honor of the individual and to smear a particular person. “
In the ruling of January 25, 2016, Judge Yun published the charge of Commissioner Shin Jeon on April 4, 2010 (ransom intentionally delayed) and the charge on June 11 of the same year (argument of intentional destruction of evidence). They said the convictions were thrown out, saying non-grazing was recognized and all were acquitted. Judge Yoon said the remaining first trial courts were dismissed by the prosecution’s appeal on 32 of the 34 indictment counts.
On whether former Commissioner Shin intended to slander, Judge Yoon said: “In determining the cause of the sinking, the process of scientific analysis that seeks the truth based on basic facts occupies a large part, so it is inevitable that the individuals judge this. “There is a limit to this,” he said. “As the defendant insists on a post-grounding conflict, there are parts that have not been confirmed as true, and there is a part to be blamed for a somewhat radical and aggressive expression, and there is much room for criticism if the content and the expression are inappropriate. ” . Judge Yoon emphasized that “this should not be criminalized, but should be dealt with in the field of academic freedom.”
Judge Yun assessed that “if the constitutive requirements of the crime of defamation are expanded and sanctioned only with external expressions, it is considered that there is concern that there is a risk of blocking the debate on important public interest concerns.”
Judge Yoon said: “In light of the general content of the article published by the defendant, he urged not to use the Cheonan incident politically, but to thoroughly investigate the cause of the sinking, and analyzed and criticized the joint organization’s announcement about the cause of the accident, It appears that he submitted his own analysis of Korea and submitted it for public interest purposes. “Judge Yun said:” The defendant’s posts and comments are requested to be freely (for viewing) public for public oversight , and based on reports and media data, individual opinions can be disclosed and the search and delay of the helmet can be criticized. It could not be concluded that the purpose was to defame a specific person as a suspect. ”In the case of innocence, he said, “there are many articles that can be seen as false facts in the post, but it is difficult to say that they recognized the falsehood.”
Regarding the significance of the sinking of the Cheonan, Judge Yoon said: “The sinking of the Cheonan is the first case of its kind in which a naval patrol ship sank while on alert and 46 crew members were killed and disappeared. Whether the investigation process and the government’s response were appropriate is subject to criticism and surveillance from the public, and has great public and social importance as it can generate political and diplomatic influences such as North Korean politics and international relations. , depending on the cause of the sinking. “In particular,” the general public has no choice but to monitor and criticize military activities based on information provided by the military and government media, and the accused is the same. ” the initial response process, the government forces the excessive monopoly of information and obstacles to the It is true that there must be ”.
In the case of the accusation that “the military intentionally delayed the rescue of the missing persons” in the “Surprise” message published on April 4, 2010 by former commissioner Shin, who was convicted in the first trial, Judge Yoon He said: “It is likely to be considered a false fact.” “It’s hard to say that the victim was specified.” Defendant Yoon said: “In this article, former commissioner Shin used the issue of delaying the rescue and rescue as the MB government and naval authority, and did not specifically specify the objective.” “The content of the publication is also content that requests the release of data for monitoring. It does not include the people who lead. “It is explained that it is difficult to say that he specified himself as Secretary of Defense or Chief of Staff of the Navy. In particular, Judge Yoon said:” It is true that the initial search and rescue of the missing persons did not proceed quickly and smoothly, and the defendant also appears to urge the Navy to quickly rescue the missing persons by requesting to stop the ransom. In this sense, it is in the interests of the public, and it is not acceptable to admit that spring is valid and is meant to slander. ”He said,“ We can’t keep the centrifuge in this part. ”
Regarding a surprise post on June 11, 2010 by former Commissioner Shin, who was convicted in the first trial, “The military destroyed the evidence by removing the scratches,” said Judge Yun, “we could not find the painting in the Cheonan , and was secretly washed under high pressure. In the sense that there is no evidence to support the defendant’s claim, he said: “It is difficult to say that it is a false fact that Defense Minister Kim Tae-young removed what had been scratched.” Regarding non-grazing purposes, Judge Yoon said, “Even if the defendant was perceived as a fake, there seems to be a reason to question the fact that the scratch was actually damaged.” “I made the questionable points with the purpose of urging that the information be disclosed in a transparent manner. In general, it is difficult to see that there is a perception of falsehood and it is difficult to conclude that it is not about grazing.” He said: “I cannot admit the sentence of the court judge who pleaded guilty” and “the defendant’s claim is reasoned.”
However, the judiciary reached the same conclusion as the first trial ruling, which found North Korea to be the cause of the sinking of the Cheonan. Judge Yun testified that △ the guards on the Cheonan ship could not have seen the water column, and because the guards in Baengnyeong-do’s posture saw the flash, it is very likely that they also saw the water column. △ Function The reason why the fluorescent lamp is not broken is that there is a chance that the impact of the fluorescent lamp alone was relatively less, since all other fluorescent lamps around it were broken. Furthermore, it is difficult to say that the bubble period measurement of the notarial sound wave and seismic wave claimed by the joint group was a basis for confirming that there was an underwater explosion, and that it was difficult to say that it was fully reproduced due to limitations. of science and technology, but that there was no error in the analysis.
In the case of the torpedo thruster, the judiciary is considered to match the CHT-02D design drawing made in North Korea, and under suspicion that the degree of corrosion of the torpedo thruster is difficult to say is about 50 days, hard to tell it was very rusty when it just got up It seems to have rusted quickly.
However, the court admitted that there was a reason for the defendant’s suspicion that the adsorbent adhered to the torpedo propeller and the ship’s S-curve propeller, and the court decided differently than in the first trial .
Copyright © Media Today, unauthorized reproduction and redistribution are prohibited.
[ad_2]
