logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 수원지방법원 안양지원 2015.04.22 2014고정495
명예훼손
Text

Defendant shall be punished by a fine of three million won.

If the defendant does not pay the above fine, KRW 100,000.

Reasons

Punishment of the crime

On May 6, 2011, the Defendant, at the office of “D Company,” operated by the Defendant in Geumcheon-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government as the production director of the said company, told F, an employee of the said company, that “The purchase data for the last three years is arranged to be used as data that can be used to be removed in the same way as being sold by the E production director after deducting the construction section,” and told F, by January 2013, the Defendant, as shown in the attached list of crimes, to the same purport, against the employees of the said company six times in total.

Accordingly, the defendant has damaged the honor of the victim by openly pointing out false facts.

Summary of Evidence

1. Each legal statement of the witness E, F, G, H, I, J, and K;

1. Some of the interrogation records of the accused by the prosecution;

1. The defendant and his defense counsel asserted that the defendant's statement was made to F, I, G, K, and H such words as the No. 1 through No. 5 of the annexed crime list does not constitute a performance, and there is no intention of defamation, even in light of the relation between the witness G, H, J, K, K, K and the defendant and the victim, according to the consistency and attitude of each statement, etc., the defendant's statement is trustable as it is. The defendant's statement was made as shown in No. 3 through No. 6 of the annexed crime list. The defendant and his defense counsel asserted that the defendant did not have intention of public performance and defamation.

However, if there is a possibility that a person might be disseminated to an unspecified or unspecified person even if he/she spreads facts to one person individually, he/she satisfies the requirements of performance (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 96Do1007, Jul. 12, 1996), F, I, G, K, and H are not those who have a special relationship with the defendant, and are engaged in the same industry as the defendant and the victim.

arrow