(영문) 수원지방법원 2016.01.13 2015노2790 | 리걸엔진

beta

본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.

Text

Reasons

텍스트 조절

글꼴

크기(pt)

굵기

줄 간격

자간(%)

(영문) 수원지방법원 2016.01.13 2015노2790

통신비밀보호법위반등

Text

The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

Reasons

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. In relation to the mistake of facts and interference with the misapprehension of legal principles, the Defendant did not perform any role in relation to the installation of banners, and instead prevented the installation of banners, and notified that all instructors including the Defendant, the president, have moved to other private teaching institutes even in relation to the notifications, and did not spread false facts, and there was no intention to do so.

B. The punishment of the lower court (six months of imprisonment, one year of suspended sentence, one year of suspended qualification) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. The following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and examined by the lower court as to the assertion of misunderstanding of facts and legal principles, namely, (i) the Defendant, even though there was a difference between J and his opinion with respect to the posting of banner, it can be seen that the Defendant did not absolutely refuse the posting of the banner on the Defendant India, and (ii) the posted banner is indicated as “open Plan on May 16, 200 before the extension,” and (iii) the Defendant himself drafted.

In light of the fact that the Defendant’s “Guide on the transfer of a private teaching institute” as the first content of the briefing session, the first content of the briefing session is indicated as the “E”, and the posted banner only indicated as the Defendant’s Handphone number, and the Defendant’s Handphone number is indicated as the Defendant’s Handphone number along with the representative phone number of the private teaching institute, it can be acknowledged that the Defendant, in collusion with J, spreaded false facts that the “E” private teaching institute will extend to “K” private teaching institute and interfere with the operation of the victim’s “E”.

Therefore, this part of the defendant's argument is without merit.

B. As to the wrongful argument of sentencing, the crime of this case is operated by the defendant as the victims and the employees.

유사 판례

-수원지방법원 안양지원 2015.05.01 2013고단1227

-수원지방법원 안양지원 2015.10.15 2015고정807

-광주지방법원 2020.12.11 2020가단529910

-부산지방법원 동부지원 2018.11.13 2018고합142

-부산지방법원 동부지원 2013.04.24 2012고단4178