logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 광주지방법원 2014.11.06 2014고정1628
정보통신망이용촉진및정보보호등에관한법률위반(명예훼손)
Text

Defendant

A A shall be punished by a fine of one million won, and Defendant B shall be punished by a fine of two million won.

The above fines are imposed by the Defendants.

Reasons

Punishment of the crime

Defendant

A is a member of the Gwangju Regional Implementation Committee of D Religious Organizations E, and Defendant B is an administrative manager of the above E.

1. Defendant A, who was in office as a pastor of the F church affiliated with E, was subject to a disposition of dismissal on October 30, 2010 through the church trial, was willing to publish a false statement in the above purport on the homepage of the D religious organization for the purpose of slandering the victim, notwithstanding the fact that the victim G was financed by financial institutions as security of the above church property and used and embezzled it individually.

At around 08:34, July 11, 2013, the Defendant posted a statement to the effect that “I” the victim is “I” under the title of “I” after having access to the homepage of a D religious organization by using a computer, and “I”, “I will improve the opening of our house, I will see the church money as an individual’s working day, and will not interfere with, and will not disclose, I’s respective statements and articles of evidence, if the law so permits.”

In addition, as indicated in the attached list of crimes (1), the Defendant posted a notice to the effect that, from that time until September 18, 2013, the victim referred to the victim as well as the victim embezzled the properties of the church three times in total, from that time to September 14, 2013.

As a result, the Defendant, by divulging public false information through information and communications networks, has damaged the reputation of the victim.

2. Defendant B

A. The Defendant, despite the fact that the victim G was able to borrow funds from financial institutions as a collateral and used and embezzled them individually, did not appear to have used the above church properties as a collateral, published a false statement to the above purport on the above website for the purpose of slandering the victim.

On September 10, 2013, the Defendant had access to the free bulletin board on the website by using a computer at the site of the street around November 11, 2013.

arrow