logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 인천지방법원 2017.12.01 2017노1921
정보통신망이용촉진및정보보호등에관한법률위반(명예훼손)등
Text

The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

Reasons

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. 1) As to the defamation of Article 1 of the facts charged in the instant case, the Defendant, without qualification as a social welfare worker, was aware of the fact.

Since misunderstanding and posting comments like this part of the facts charged for the public interest, such posting cannot be punished because it is not illegal, the judgment of the court below that convicted of this part of the facts charged is erroneous by misunderstanding the facts and affecting the conclusion of the judgment.

2) As to the insult of paragraph 2 of the facts charged in the instant case: ① in the case of paragraph (1), the Defendant asked questions to the other North Korean users; thus, there was no intention to insult the victim; ② in the case of paragraph (b), the content of the comments posted by the Defendant does not undermine the social evaluation of the victim’s personal value, and thus, the crime of insult cannot be established. ③

In the case of paragraph (1), although the comments posted by the defendant cannot be viewed as referring to the victim, the judgment of the court below that convicted all of the above facts charged is erroneous in the misapprehension of facts and thereby affecting the conclusion of the judgment.

B. The sentence of the lower court (the amount of KRW 800,00,000 and the cost of the lawsuit) is too unreasonable.

2. Judgment on the assertion of mistake of facts

A. The following circumstances are revealed by the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court below and the trial court as to the violation of Article 1 of the facts charged of this case’s defamation, namely, ① the defendant led to confession of this part of the facts charged in this case at the court below, which led to the reversal of such confession without any justifiable reason. ② Whether the victim is qualified as a social welfare worker or the period required for passing the qualifying examination is certain degree of time, the victim did not attempt to confirm it through the victim or by any other means.

arrow