logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 인천지방법원 2019.05.09 2018노2187
정보통신망이용촉진및정보보호등에관한법률위반(명예훼손)
Text

The judgment of the court below is reversed.

Defendant shall be punished by a fine of one million won.

Of the facts charged in this case, April 15, 2016.

Reasons

1. Although the summary of the grounds for appeal is the fact that the defendant written or written the same article as the facts constituting the crime in the judgment of the court below, it was not false nor did the defendant have knowledge of false facts.

And there was no purpose of slandering the victim.

2. Judgment on the defendant's assertion

A. The summary of the facts charged in this part of the facts charged in the judgment below is as follows: (i) around 04:32 on March 30, 2016, a copy of the Seoul Administrative Court Administrative Decision 1: (ii) on the online newspaper B’s online newspaper (“InternetB”); (iii) on July 16, 2016, one copy of the Seoul Administrative Court Administration 1: (iv) requested the cancellation of the disposition of enlistment in active duty service; (iv) winning the Plaintiff in the lawsuit filed against the Seoul Military Affairs Administration; and (v) it has been spreading two times or more in the emergency room due to the assertion of mental fission and the transmission, and (iv) it has been exempted from hospital treatment for 42 times during 2 years; and (v) it has damaged the reputation of the victim by writing “the victim” in the broadcast.

In addition, according to the contents of the defendant's partial statement, victim I's statement, investigation report, etc., the court below determined that the defendant has damaged the victim's reputation by exposing false facts for the purpose of slandering the victim.

The circumstances the lower court explained, and the following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and investigated by the lower court, namely, ① the Defendant posted the words “N” as it is, and there is no reason to deem that there was an investigation as to whether the words were true, and ② the part of the writing posted by the Defendant is the same as the words written by the Defendant in preparing articles about another person before, revealing false facts for the purpose of slandering the victim.

arrow