logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 부산지방법원 2016.07.06 2016고정886
명예훼손
Text

Defendants shall be punished by a fine of one million won.

In the event that the Defendants did not pay a fine, only 100,000 won.

Reasons

Punishment of the crime

Defendants in collusion, and around October 1, 2014, at the entrance of the Busan East-gu D apartment entrance, “the apartment residents are working in the apartment site.”

Among the parking lot expansion projects, the expenses incurred in adding approximately KRW 8 million for the permission of design change due to the internal complainants, and the internal complainants shall be collected by the residents of the apartment.

On October 8, 2014, a banner with the content of “resident Dong” was installed, and around October 2, 2014, the victim’s reputation was damaged by openly pointing out the fact that “Isma and the complainant do not have any complainant, but there is no complainant,” with the content of “Isma and the complainant domin the Dong-dong of residents other than the complainant 809.”

Summary of Evidence

1. The Defendants’ respective legal statements

1. Legal statement of witness E;

1. A protocol concerning the interrogation of suspect with respect to F;

1. Each police statement protocol with respect to E and G;

1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes on site photographs;

1. Relevant legal provisions and the Defendants’ choice of punishment regarding criminal facts: Article 307(1) of the Criminal Act; selection of fines

1. Defendants to be detained in the workhouse: Articles 70(1) and 69(2) of the Criminal Act

1. Defendants of the provisional payment order: Article 334(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act

1. Defendants bearing the costs of lawsuit: The Defendants and the defense counsel asserted that the instant crime by the Defendants was committed for the benefit of apartment residents, and thus, the crime of defamation is not established. However, according to the evidence submitted by the prosecutor, the above assertion is acceptable, since the Defendants sufficiently recognized that they installed each banner of this case for the purpose of criticism or slandering the victims.

arrow