logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
arrow
(영문) 수원지방법원 2020.12.15 2020고정1464
정보통신망이용촉진및정보보호등에관한법률위반(명예훼손)
Text

A defendant shall be punished by a fine of 500,000 won.

However, the execution of the above punishment shall be suspended for one year from the date this judgment becomes final and conclusive.

Reasons

Punishment of the crime

On September 28, 2019, the Defendant connected to the Kakao Stockholm group rooms in which 33 air route bus engineers of B Co., Ltd. participate, and prepared and transmitted a letter to the victim E, the victim D and team leader, who is a workplace club, stating that the victim E, “I would have any problem from the time of his admission. I intentionally drive the car and intentionally, damaged other ties, and damaged the C road image by operating the bus of other companies at risk. Nevertheless, only one person and team leader are sheeped. However, the two persons are sheeped. If they are aware of what relationship they do, they intentionally carried out the operation of the bus with the victim D and the victim related to the victim E, who is the victim D and the team leader.”

In fact, however, the victim D did not intentionally engage in the operation, and the victims did not have a relation of interest.

Nevertheless, in order to defame the victims, the defendant has damaged the honor of the victims by pointing out false facts as above on the information and communications network.

Summary of Evidence

1. Defendant's legal statement;

1. Statement made to D by the police;

1. Application of the statutes on the contents of Kakao dialogue sent by the suspect;

1. Article 70 (2) of the Act on Promotion of Information and Communications Network Utilization and Information Protection, Etc. and Selection of a fine concerning facts constituting an offense;

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

1. Article 62(1) of the Criminal Act (see, e.g., Article 62(1) of the Act on the Suspension of Execution (see, e., Supreme Court Decision 2006Da1548, Apr.

1. Articles 70 (1) and 69 (2) of the Criminal Act for detention in a workhouse (when a suspended sentence of imprisonment is invalidated or revoked);

arrow