손해배상(기)
1. The Plaintiff. Defendant G is KRW 300,00 for Defendant G, and the remainder Defendants are KRW 100,000 for each of them, as well as Defendant B, C, and D for each of them on January 2014.
1. Facts of recognition;
A. On December 23, 2014, the Plaintiff: (a) on the car page located in Mapo-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government Dongdaedong-gu, “Ampire’s reply to conscientious objection according to conscience”; (b) on the same day, the title “J” was “J” in the news column provided by Internet portal “I”; and (c) reported the Plaintiff’s above press conference along with the Plaintiff’s photograph.
B. On December 23, 2014 and the following day, the Defendants written and posted comments on the contents as shown in the separate sheet.
(H) part excluding H.C.
The Plaintiff filed a complaint against the Defendants as a crime of insult, and Defendant B received a summary order of KRW 300,000 and KRW 200,000,000, respectively, and the remaining Defendants were subject to a disposition of suspending indictment (in particular, Defendant G was subject to a disposition of suspending indictment on condition of completion of education).
[Reasons for Recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1-1, Gap evidence 2 through 4, 6 through 11, 13 through 15 (including additional numbers), the purport of the whole pleadings
2. According to the above facts of recognition, the defendants are obligated to compensate for mental suffering suffered by the plaintiff, since they posted an abstract judgment that may undermine the plaintiff's social reputation on the bulletin board of the Internet site where many unspecified or unspecified persons connect or each comments containing a sacrific sentiment against the plaintiff, thereby having committed a tort that insults the plaintiff.
Furthermore, the amount of consolation money shall be determined at KRW 30,000 for Defendant G and KRW 100,000 for the remainder of the Defendants, respectively, by comprehensively taking into account the various circumstances shown in the arguments, such as the frequency and contents of each comments posted by the Defendants, the background leading up to writing comments, and circumstances after writing comments.
Therefore, the judgment that held that it is reasonable for the Defendants to dispute the existence or scope of their performance obligations from December 24, 2014, which is the date of tort, Defendant B, C, and D with respect to the Plaintiff’s KRW 300,000,000, the remainder of the Defendants, and each of them, from December 24, 2014, and from December 23, 2014, the date of tort.