logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 울산지방법원 2014.11.28 2014고정818
명예훼손
Text

The defendant is innocent. The summary of this judgment shall be notified publicly.

Reasons

1. On July 30, 2013, from around 14:30 to August 20:30, 2013, the summary of the facts charged, the Defendant installed two banners on the following side of the “E” way operated by the victim D located in Ulsan-gu C, Ulsan-gu, on the ground that the victim’s indecent act is not against the victim’s sexual intercourse with his/her employees and customers, and on the ground that the victim’s indecent act is not against the sexual intercourse. The president of E is recognized as a crime; the police officer will thoroughly investigate sexual indecent act.”

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

2. Determination

A. Although the gist of the defendant's assertion of defense counsel is a fact that the defendant committed the same act as that stated in the facts charged, it is for the public interest and cannot be punished as the illegality under Article 310 of the Criminal Act.

B. In light of the determination, Article 310 of the Criminal Act provides, “The act of Article 307(1) of the Criminal Act (the act of damaging a person’s reputation by openly pointing out a fact) is true and solely for the public interest, the person shall not be punished.” In this context, “the time when the alleged fact concerns the public interest” means the time when the alleged fact objectively concerns the public interest, and the person who committed the act should also state the fact subjectively for the public interest.

(See Supreme Court Decision 2003Do2137 Decided April 29, 2005, etc.). The following circumstances acknowledged by the health stand back to the instant case, and the evidence duly admitted and investigated by this court, namely, defamation expressions in this case were sexually indecent acts committed by the victim operating soup. In light of the fact that the victim, as the main owner of soup bank, committed soup by taking advantage of his/her position, he/she did not constitute a matter of public interest, and the victim himself/herself committed an indecent act in soup and thereby, thereby causing the risk of defamation.

arrow