logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 창원지방법원 밀양지원 2017.01.19 2015고정229
정보통신망이용촉진및정보보호등에관한법률위반(명예훼손)
Text

The defendant is not guilty. The summary of the judgment against the defendant shall be published.

Reasons

Defendant A is an instructor of a private teaching institute. Defendant A is a person who uses the Internet portal site “D” in “www.naver.com.”

Using the title "D" as a member of NAV C, the Defendant, as a member of NAV C, wishes to open to the public only one top prior to the F visiting machine located in Alra Mmon, under the title "E" around February 5, 2015.

It is not accepted between the Megra and Megra F, which the No. Hag and the Megna.

Since January of the next year, I do not grant labor approval.

(C) A notice was given to the following: (a) the stop condition of the contract with G is one of the stop (hereinafter omitted) and hyp (hereinafter omitted).

However, the complainant G did not have any fact that there was no actual labor approval, and there was no fact that the contract was saw due to the lack of labor approval.

As a result, the Defendant expressed false facts using information and communications networks so that approximately 500 members can see them, thereby impairing the honor of the victim.

Judgment

1. Relevant legal principles

A. The facts constituting the elements of a crime charged in a criminal trial, whether subjective or objective, are the burden of proof, and thus, in a case prosecuted for an defamation of reputation through an information and communications network indicating false facts under Article 70(2) of the Act on Promotion of the Use of Information and Communications Network and Information Protection, Etc., the fact was revealed to have been depreciated, and the fact that the alleged facts are not consistent with the objective truth and are false, and that the Defendant knew that the alleged facts were false and confirmed that they were false should be verified by the prosecutor (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2009Do12132, Nov. 25, 2010). (b) The phrase “the purpose of slandering a person” as prescribed by Article 70(2) of the Act on Promotion of the Use of Information and Communications Network and Information Protection, Etc. is either the intention or the intent of harm.

arrow