logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
Text
Reasons
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 부산지방법원 2014.11.20 2014고정2284
명예훼손
Text

Defendant shall be punished by a fine of KRW 500,000.

Where the defendant fails to pay the above fine, one hundred thousand won shall be one day.

Reasons

Punishment of the crime

On February 23, 2014, the Defendant: (a) was the general secretary of the council of occupants’ representatives in Busan Northern-gu Ctel; (b) on the first floor of the instant officetel around 11:00, the victim D was not the victim D but the victim D; (c) on the other hand, the Defendant: (a) stated that “E representative (E’s horses) was before the 35 occupants present at the council of occupants’ representatives, who were 48 criminal offenders before D and tried to sell them outside the country; and (d) thereby, damaged the reputation of the victim by openly pointing out false facts.

Summary of Evidence

1. Partial statement of the defendant;

1. Statement made by the police against D or F;

1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes on recording;

1. Relevant provisions of the Criminal Act and Article 307 (2) of the Criminal Act concerning the selection of penalties;

1. Articles 70 (1) and 69 (2) of the Criminal Act for the detention of a workhouse;

1. The defendant and his/her defense counsel's assertion of the defendant and his/her defense counsel under Article 334 (1) of the Criminal Procedure Act asserts that even though the defendant stated facts as stated in its reasoning, this constitutes Article 310 of the Criminal Act, and thus, illegality is excluded.

On the other hand, Article 310 of the Criminal Act provides that the act under Article 307(1) of the Criminal Act is true and solely for the public interest, and there is no room for applying Article 310 of the Criminal Act on the rejection of illegality premised on the fact that the act under Article 307(2) of the Criminal Act is true.

However, according to the evidence of the judgment, since D may recognize facts that are not the criminal record of 48 criminal records, it is obvious that Article 310 of the Criminal Act cannot be applied to the defendant's act, and the above assertion by the defendant and his defense counsel is rejected.

arrow