정보통신망이용촉진및정보보호등에관한법률위반(명예훼손)
The judgment of the court below is reversed.
Defendant shall be punished by a fine of KRW 1,000,000.
The above fine shall not be paid by the defendant.
1. The gist of the grounds for appeal is that of the lower court’s punishment of KRW 1.5 million (a fine of KRW 1.5 million) is too unreasonable.
2. Article 11 of the Criminal Act for ex officio determination provides that the act of deaf-mutes should be mitigated to the extent that the punishment is necessary.
However, according to the records, since the defendant is a deaf-mute who is unable to hear and speak, his punishment should be mitigated as necessary.
Nevertheless, the lower court, without reducing the above punishment, determined the applicable sentence and sentenced the Defendant to the punishment.
3. Accordingly, the judgment of the court below is reversed in accordance with Article 364 (2) of the Criminal Procedure Act without examining the defendant's assertion of unfair sentencing, and the judgment below is again decided as follows after oral argument.
[Discied reasoning of the judgment] Criminal facts and the summary of evidence recognized by the court below and the summary of evidence are the same as the corresponding column of the judgment below. Thus, they are cited as it is in accordance with Article 369 of the Criminal Procedure Act.
Application of Statutes
1. Article 70(1) of the Act on Promotion, etc. of Information and Communications Network Utilization and Information Protection, etc. for a crime; Articles 11 and 55(1)6 of the Criminal Act to legally mitigate the choice of fines for a crime;
1. Articles 70 (1) and 69 (2) of the Criminal Act for the detention of a workhouse;
1. The crime of this case on the grounds of sentencing under Article 334(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act of the provisional payment order is that the defendant knee kelel in order to reach an agreement on the her husband's assault case, and the defendant sent the video of the kne kne to many persons.
The defendant's responsibility is weak in that the above video was generated by a result listed on the app used by many persons with hearing disabilities beyond the extent of simply transmitting it to the branch.
shall not be required to do so.
On the other hand, the defendant sent the above video to his branch, not directly posted it on the above app.
The defendant is punished for the same crime.