logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 수원지방법원 안양지원 2018.09.18 2018고단539
정보통신망이용촉진및정보보호등에관한법률위반(명예훼손)
Text

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

When the defendant does not pay the above fine, 100,000 won.

Reasons

Punishment of the crime

The defendant is the chairperson of the third management of the officetel B in Gunpo-si, and the victim C is the general manager of the two offices of the above officetel.

On June 1, 2017, the Defendant was prosecuted by the prosecution on the ground that the owner of the instant officetel was found to have committed an offense, such as embezzlement, preparation of qualifications, and display of private documents, for the owner of the instant officetel.

“ Transmitting text messages containing the content “”.

On April 7, 2017, the Defendant filed a complaint with the affiliated branch office of the Suwon District Public Prosecutor's Office for the second period management of the Defendant, including the victim, by embezzlement, etc., and was subject to the suspension of indictment for the criminal conciliation around April 13, 2017. Therefore, there was no victim, etc. at the time of transmitting the above text message.

Accordingly, the defendant has damaged the reputation of the victim by openly pointing out false facts through the information and communication network with the aim of slandering the victim.

Summary of Evidence

1. Statement made by the police against C;

1. Each investigation report (report on the result of the disposition of the case against which the victim filed a complaint against the victim in this case, and attachment such as a written decision on criminal conciliation of related cases) / [the defendant's act was for public interest.]

The argument is asserted.

However, the alleged facts not only conflict with the truth, but also believed that the defendant had believed to be true.

even if there is a reasonable reason to believe that there was such a reason

It is also difficult to see it.

The defendant had the purpose of slandering the victim.

Inasmuch as it is reasonable to view the Defendant’s assertion, we cannot accept.

Application of Statutes

1. Article 70 (2) of the Act on Promotion of Utilization of Information and Communications Network Utilization and Information Protection, etc., concerning facts constituting a crime and Article 70 of the relevant Act;

1. Article 70(1) and Article 69(2) of the Criminal Act to attract a workhouse;

1. Article 334 (1) of the Criminal Procedure Act concerning the order of provisional payment;

arrow