logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
Text
Reasons
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 서울북부지방법원 2012.10.11 2012고정1634
정보통신망이용촉진및정보보호등에관한법률위반(명예훼손)
Text

Defendant shall be punished by a fine of KRW 2,000,000.

If the defendant does not pay the above fine, 50,000 won.

Reasons

Punishment of the crime

On August 29, 2011, the Defendant, at the office of Seocho-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government Company B, connected to the bulletin board of the Internet portal site “the following,” and opened a notice stating that “I will not have any way to cover up the future 300,000 won for the insurance business phone from the insurance seller of the future Mad Life C (D: telephone: E) in March 2006, the Defendant subscribed to the insurance business phone and give a high return of profit. I would like to give a high return of profit, e-mail and good insurance products, and the mandatory payment period is not more than 18 months, and there is no explanation that the alternative premium will have been covered up with the 40,000 won per month.”

Accordingly, the defendant has damaged the reputation of the victim by divulging facts openly through the information and communication network for the purpose of slandering the victim.

Summary of Evidence

1. Partial statement of the defendant;

1. C’s statement;

1. Application of the Acts and subordinate statutes to the complaint;

1. Article 70 (1) of the Act on Promotion of Information and Communications Network Utilization and Information Protection, etc. concerning criminal facts;

1. Articles 70 and 69 (2) of the Criminal Act for the detention of a workhouse;

1. The defendant's assertion against the defendant under Article 334 (1) of the Criminal Procedure Act is that the defendant posted a true fact about C, and this is related to the public interest, so the defendant has no purpose of slandering C, and the defendant's act does not constitute a crime.

First, as to whether the writing posted by the defendant is true or not, the defendant was unable to hear the explanation of the alternative insurance premium from the investigative agency and this court. However, the defendant was stated in the subscription form in the investigative agency and read it.

arrow