logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 제주지방법원 2012.06.01 2011고정1003
명예훼손
Text

Defendant shall be punished by a fine of KRW 700,000.

If the defendant does not pay the above fine, 50,000 won.

Reasons

Punishment of the crime

Since three years ago, the Defendant provided the victim C and the victim D with the primary call number from the primary call number plant operated by the Defendant to the Defendant’s wife for free, and the victim’s husband and wife were engaged in volunteer activities to deliver the said primary call number to various facilities at the expense of the delivery cost. At around 2009, the Defendant sent the victim’s husband and wife the primary call number to Cambodia and delivered it to E by the victim’s husband and wife. In E, the Defendant did not send the primary call number to Cambodia because of lack of cooling facilities in Cambodia, and the Defendant did not sell the primary call number to other domestic organizations.

1. The Defendant, on March 201, damaged the honor of the victims by openly pointing out false facts, stating that “This J couple’s “J” was sold to the believers, such as H and I, from G Council members located in the Jeju Island F on March 2011.”

2. On June 10, 201, at around 10:00, the Defendant: (a) began in front of the Samdodo-dong Hado-dong, Jeju-do and obstructed the honor of the victims by openly pointing out false facts to the public by openly pointing out that “The Defendant was 25 persons, such as L, etc. in the bus going to the K plant, who are in the city of MF, who wanted to return it to social welfare facilities.”

Summary of Evidence

1. Application of the respective statutory statements made by witnesses C, D, I, L and N

1. Relevant Article 307 (2) of the Criminal Act and Article 307 (2) of the same Act concerning criminal facts (the point of defamation and the selection of fines);

1. Of concurrent crimes, the former part of Article 37, Articles 38 (1) 2 and 50 of the Criminal Act;

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

1. As to the assertion of defense counsel under Article 334(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act regarding provisional payment order, the defense counsel as the defendant is a place other than Cambodia by the injured couple.

arrow