logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 인천지방법원 2017.11.16 2017노1908
명예훼손
Text

The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

Reasons

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal (misunderstanding of facts or misunderstanding of legal principles) has no possibility of spreading words to D, and the performance of the crime of defamation should be denied.

Nevertheless, the court below convicted the charged facts of this case. The court below erred by misapprehending the facts or by misapprehending the legal principles, which affected the conclusion of the judgment.

2. The public performance, which is a constituent element of the crime of defamation of reputation, refers to the state in which many, unspecified or unspecified persons can be recognized even if one person expresses the fact, if there is a possibility of spreading it to an unspecified or unspecified person, the performance requirement is satisfied. If the public performance of the crime of defamation of reputation is acknowledged for the possibility of dissemination, at least as a subjective element of the constituent elements of the crime, dolusent intent is required, so there is a need for dolus negligence as well as an intent to deliberate to allow the risk. Whether the actor allowed the possibility of dissemination should be determined by considering how to assess the possibility of dissemination if the general public is based on specific circumstances, such as the form of the act, the situation of the act, etc. being externally revealed, and the psychological condition should be confirmed from the perspective of the actor (see Supreme Court Decision 2004Do340, Apr. 9, 200). Accordingly, the court below's duly adopted and investigated the following circumstances.

Even if there was a possibility that it could be disseminated to the general public and unspecified.

Since the public performance is recognized, the defendant has already recognized the possibility of dissemination at the time of the crime, and he can sufficiently recognize that there has been an internal deliberation intent to allow the risk.

Therefore, guilty of the facts charged in the instant case.

arrow