logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 수원지방법원 2014.01.09 2013노4303
모욕
Text

The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

Reasons

1. The reason why the defendant prepared and posted the notice of this case is for sharing information with other consumers to protect the legitimate rights of other consumers with respect to medical service provided by D. Thus, the act of posting the notice of this case constitutes a justifiable act under Article 20 of the Criminal Act.

Nevertheless, the judgment of the court below which found the defendant guilty of the facts charged of this case is erroneous in misapprehension of legal principles.

2. The "act that does not violate the social rules" under Article 20 of the Criminal Code refers to the act which can be accepted in light of the overall spirit of legal order or the social ethics or social norms surrounding it, and as a legitimate act that does not violate the social norms, the illegality of certain act should be avoided, based on specific circumstances, and it should be determined individually by considering the motive or purpose of the act, the reasonableness of the means or method of the act, the balance between the legal interests of the third protected interests and infringed interests, the fourth urgency, and the fifth supplementary nature that there is no other means or method other than the act.

(2) In light of the above legal principles and records, the Defendant did not appear to have been aware of the fact that the Defendant was aware of the fact that the Defendant was aware of the fact that the Defendant did not properly respond to the Defendant’s question in the course of receiving medical treatment by visiting the victim’s home at first time, which was duly admitted and investigated by the lower court, and then written the same article as the facts charged. In light of the contents, the Defendant did not have to respond to the Defendant’s question in the process of receiving medical treatment by visiting the victim’s home at first time, on the basis of objective facts, data, etc., and rather than for the legitimate purpose of the consumer’s right to know, the Defendant’s expression of the fact that the Defendant was made up of the victim’s face

arrow