beta
Text
1.The judgment of the first instance court, including the claims expanded and reduced in this Court, shall be modified as follows:
Reasons
1. According to the overall purport of evidence Nos. 1, 2, 6-1, 2, 7-3, and 5 of the evidence Nos. 1, 6-1, 2, and 5, the plaintiff A is the Dong representative of the Guro-gu Seoul Metropolitan Council of Residents' Representatives; the plaintiff B is the general secretary of the above council of occupants' representatives; the defendant was the auditor of the above council of occupants' representatives; the defendant retired on November 2, 2014; the defendant was issued a summary order (No. 2017 high-level7024) with a fine of 2 million won due to the crime that defames the honor of the plaintiffs at the Seoul Southern Southern District Court; the defendant, at around April 15, 2017, who attended the residents' general meeting held at the D apartment No. 19:00, and the above summary order became final and conclusive, being aware of the fact that the plaintiffs did not embezzled management expenses and received a disposition by an investigation agency; the defendant was well aware of the fact that he received a disposition."
68 million won is required to be the sum of 68 million won.
The head of the Tong and the balance, so that they have been accused of all ', ',' and so on.
The decision to withdraw the match is not a personal food of this order because it is called a "propatus" so that it can be seen as a "propatus", and eventually, the decision to withdraw the match is not personally made, and the decision to withdraw the match is required to be given to the public.
Therefore, by stating that the ruling to withdraw the match has yet to be made, the plaintiffs' honor was damaged by openly pointing out false facts.
fact may be recognized.
2. As above, the establishment of the liability for damages and the determination of the amount of damages recognized that the Defendant’s reputation was undermined by pointing false facts in the final and conclusive summary order, and there is no special circumstance to deem it difficult to adopt a factual judgment in the instant criminal trial.
After all, the defendant.