손해배상
1. Of the judgment of the first instance court, KRW 3,00,000 against the Plaintiff and its related thereto from July 1, 2015 to June 21, 2017 against the Plaintiff.
1. Occurrence of liability for damages;
A. The reasoning for the court’s explanation on this part is as follows, except for the part of the Defendant’s insult on July 2, 2015 among the written reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance (hereinafter “5”), the part of the Defendant’s insult on July 2, 2015, is the same as the corresponding part of the judgment of the court of first instance. 5) On July 2, 2015, the Defendant’s insulting act was first written at the office around 14:00 on July 2, 2015, and the Plaintiff was transferred to the Nonparty Company’s medical office, and the rest of C Center employees had fluened the Plaintiff as the same while there was no Plaintiff. In particular, H was a show when considering the inside.
S. He said, “Ising back to doping,” and G said, “Is down to see, at the same time, she was suffering from the same kind of shock.”
At that time, any of the employees at the time said that any group referred the Plaintiff as “two years,” and the Defendant said that “Wook kacked down by drinking at all at all, booming tobacco and making it difficult to do so, thereby making it difficult for him to do so.”
The plaintiff installed a tape recorder in the ordinary office and recorded a tape recording for other employees. After written out by the plaintiff, dialogue with the contents of harming the plaintiff is also recorded by the plaintiff's tape recording machine.
Based on the above recording content, the Plaintiff filed a complaint against the Defendant as a crime of insult.
The defendant was pronounced not guilty on the ground that it was not recognized that there was a fact that the defendant stated "two years" in Seoul Central District Court 2015 High Court Decision 56.
B. According to the facts of recognition as above, most C Center employees excluding F, even if they were used on July 2, 2015, can be acknowledged that the Plaintiff suffered from most of the employees of C Center, such as engaging in speech and behavior, despite the Plaintiff’s use on July 2, 2015. However, the Defendant, as the head of C Center, is the Plaintiff, who is an employee of C Center.