beta
(영문) 인천지방법원 2018.03.30 2018고정90

모욕

Text

The defendant shall be innocent.

Reasons

1. The summary of the facts charged is the head of C&D team at the business place of another port of the C&D, and the victim E shall be the chairperson of C&D.

On May 30, 2017, the Defendant: (a) at the office of another port of service located in F C&D on May 30, 2017; (b) under the title “G” on the internal computer network free bulletin board available to be seen by the company employees; and (c) in relation to the victim E, the Defendant did not reach the level 6 E of Korea Industrial Complex.

Ebbbags

E Doz. Doz. Doz. Doz. Doz. Doz.

A notice was made to the effect that the proposal was less than the two children and that it was received with such a substitute, thereby openly insulting the victims.

2. Determination

A. In a criminal trial, the facts constituting a crime ought to be acknowledged by strict evidence having probative value, which makes the judge feel true beyond a reasonable doubt. As such, in a case where the prosecutor’s proof does not sufficiently reach the extent of having the aforementioned conviction, even if there is suspicion of guilt, such as the defendant’s assertion or defense contradictory or uncomfortable dismissal, it should be determined in the interests of the defendant (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2010Do1487, Apr. 28, 201). (b) According to the evidence duly adopted and duly examined by the court, the defendant’s evidence was “G” under the title “G” on the bulletin board of the internal computer network freedom of the Corporation’s internal computer network of the Corporation, and publicly posted a statement containing the same content as the facts charged, by publicly announcing the prosecutor’s complaint against E, the head of the C Corporation’s headquarters, as the head of the C Corporation’s internal computer network.

However, considering that there was a fact that the Defendant had been investigated as a suspicion of defamation against E prior to the posting of the above article, in light of the content and context of the above posting, the other party, and the writing posted by the Defendant before and after the date of the above posting, the Defendant is “E” in the process of critical expression of opinion regarding the treatment of the Defendant against E.