logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 부산지방법원 2017.02.03 2016노1466
정보통신망이용촉진및정보보호등에관한법률위반(명예훼손)
Text

The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.

Reasons

1. In light of the overall context of the article posted by the Defendant on the Defendant’s Twitter account as indicated in the facts charged, and the relationship between the Defendant and the victim E at the time of posting, etc., the gist of the grounds of appeal is that the publication of this case constitutes an expression of false facts with the purport that the injured party used the support fund received for coverage purposes in the field reporter for personal purposes. However, the publication of this case does not mean that the injured party has misappropriated the support fund.

The judgment of the court below which acquitted the defendant of the facts charged in this case is erroneous by misapprehending the legal principles and thereby affecting the conclusion of the judgment.

2. Determination:

A. On July 29, 2014, at around 01:29, the summary of the facts charged in the instant case, the Defendant was able to support the Defendant’s Twitter account (D) at the Defendant’s residence located in Busan Dongdong-gu, Busan, about July 29, 2014.

In the swimming pool, it is difficult to do so while sluning and Sponsoring the same-sex drugs in the same-sex type of the accident of the Orabama on the swimming pool.

It is very difficult to see even bents by fenz.

Although the notice was posted in this case, the victim E did not have any fact of personally useful support payments.

Accordingly, the defendant abused the victim's reputation by disclosing false information through information and communications networks with a view to slandering the victim.

B. The lower court determined that the issue of the instant case is whether the content of the Defendant’s instant notice posted on his Twitter account constitutes a statement of fact about the fact that E personally uses the support payment, and according to the evidence duly admitted and examined by the lower court, the lower court determined that: (a) in the Twitter account (F), and “E is G activities and guidance prior to the date,” the thickness of H.

arrow