logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 서울서부지방법원 2017.10.26 2017노754
명예훼손
Text

The judgment of the court below is reversed.

The sentence of each sentence against the Defendants shall be suspended.

Reasons

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Although Defendant A and G did not participate in the instant demonstration, or did not do anything in a scamet or relief, Defendant H and I did not engage in any demonstration in violation of the law, or did an act of damaging the reputation of the victim company, the lower court convicted the said Defendants of the charges of defamation by misunderstanding the facts.

B. The Defendants, misunderstanding the legal principles, exceeded the permissible scope in light of social norms, thereby impairing the reputation of the victim company.

It cannot be seen that the above timely statement is false, or there was no false perception to the Defendants, and the Defendants merely committed a demonstration within the scope of the constitutional rights regarding assembly and demonstration, but the lower court convicted the Defendants of the charge of the crime of defamation of honor by misapprehending legal doctrine.

2. Judgment on the grounds of appeal by the Defendants

A. The joint principal offender under Article 30 of the Criminal Act, which determined the assertion of misunderstanding the fact, is established by meeting the subjective and objective requirements that the crime is committed through functional control based on the intent of joint processing and the intent of joint processing. A part of the conspiracys did not directly share and implement part of the constituent requirements.

Even in light of the status and role of a person in a whole crime, or the control or power over the progress of the crime, if it is recognized that the person has functional control over the crime through essential contribution rather than just a person who has conspired, the so-called "joint principal offender" cannot be exempted from the liability for the crime (see Supreme Court Decision 2016Do15470, Jan. 12, 2017, etc.). The court below duly adopted and examined evidence, such as the following: (a) murder and investigation report (attached to the materials submitted by the complainant, such as the photograph of the suspect's participation in the assembly, and evidence record 948 pages).

arrow