logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 청주지방법원 2013.07.19 2013노255
명예훼손
Text

The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.

Reasons

1. The gist of the grounds of appeal is that the Defendant asked G about the victim as described in the facts charged in the verdict of innocence does not aim at confirming the victim’s contents or authenticity of the written verdict, but rather at identifying the fact that the victim’s sexual relation is not good, and thus, the crime of defamation is established.

2. Determination

A. The lower court determined that the part of the facts charged in its judgment was not guilty on the following grounds.

In order to establish defamation, it is required to make a statement of specific facts sufficient to undermine the people's social evaluation. According to the witness G's statement in the second trial record of the court below, it is acknowledged that the defendant asked G to "I do not have a complicated male relation," and asked G to answer "I do not have a simple male relation." Thus, the defendant cannot be deemed to have made a mere questioning, and further, it cannot be deemed that the defendant made a statement of specific facts that C's male relation is complicated by questioning the defendant.

In addition, the part concerning the facts charged in this part among the statements made in the investigation agency of C and in the court of original trial is that C transferred the dialogue between G and the defendant from G, and thus, it is not admissible as it constitutes a specialized statement, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge the facts charged

B. The prosecutor asserts to the effect that the facts charged and the facts charged are close to the date of the crime committed by the court below, and the purport and intent of the statement made by the defendant are similar. Thus, the prosecutor should not evaluate differently the facts charged and the facts charged guilty.

However, according to the evidence duly adopted and investigated by the court below, the defendant works together with the victim and D funeral hall on August 2012, 201, and the victim's work attitude is poor.

arrow