logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 인천지방법원 2019.07.12 2018고정2052
명예훼손
Text

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

Reasons

1. The Defendant is the occupant of the Michuhol-gu Incheon Building C, and the complainant is the representative of the occupant of the building B from October 2016, and is the resident of the building D.

On April 24, 2018, the Defendant: (a) prepared and attached a written proposal stating that “Around April 24, 2018, the first floor of the Michuhol-gu Incheon Metropolitan City B building, and the inside of the elevator, are not sufficient to meet the requirements for qualification by the complainant’s eligibility as the representative of the occupants by making a move-in report at the address at the address; and (b) it is not sufficient to meet the requirements for qualification by the complainant’s representative; (c)

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

2. Determination

A. In a criminal trial, the burden of proof for the facts constituting an offense prosecuted is to be borne by the public prosecutor, and the conviction is to be based on the evidence of probative value that makes the judge feel true beyond a reasonable doubt. Therefore, if there is no such evidence, even if there is a suspicion of guilt against the defendant, it shall be determined with the benefit of the defendant.

(see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2011Do7261, Nov. 10, 2011). Furthermore, in order to establish a crime of defamation by publicly alleging false facts, such publicly alleged facts should be deemed to be false, and the Defendant should be aware that the alleged facts are false at the time of publicly expressing such facts, and the burden of proof for the criminal intent lies with the prosecutor.

(See Supreme Court Decision 2009Do4949 Decided October 28, 2010, etc.). B.

Although it appears that the defendant stated to the effect that he was aware of the facts charged during the police investigation, the police interrogation protocol of the defendant against the defendant is now denied.

arrow