logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
서울서부지방법원 2017.05.10 2016가합2888
정정보도 등
Text

1.(a)

The defendant Loenna Co., Ltd. shall be a person, in the YTN program, within seven days after this judgment becomes final and conclusive.

Reasons

Facts of recognition

(1) The Plaintiff, who was a university professor, was sentenced to eight years of imprisonment on May 27, 2016 with respect to the crime of violation of the Punishment of Violences, etc. Act (a crime of injury by habitual collective weapons, etc.) on the grounds of the fact that the Plaintiff committed a harsh act to a third party, and the said judgment became final and conclusive on August 30, 2016, and is currently in execution of the said sentence. (2) Defendant ABE Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “Defendant ABE”) is a broadcasting business entity that reports the comprehensive news, and Defendant ABE is an online newspaper business entity that reports the comprehensive news.

On July 5, 2016, the Plaintiff filed an application for the suspension of the Plaintiff’s detention and the Defendants’ report 1) on July 5, 2016, the Plaintiff filed an application for the suspension of the execution of detention with the Supreme Court of Korea. (2) Defendant Ghana published a report with the same content as “D” in the program “YTN” as shown in attached Table 3 on the background screen, and published a caption such as “emphasizing the state of mental disability”, “I am in a very serious form of criticism, etc., and there is a depression.”

3) As the title “F” on the same day, Defendant ABlus posted an article identical to the above broadcast report on the Internet YTN News website (htp:/www.wwwn.co.co. Ltd.) on the Social side, as shown in attached Table 3 (hereinafter the above broadcast report and articles collectively referred to as the “instant report”).

(2) According to the reasoning of the lower court’s judgment, the lower court erred by misapprehending the legal principles on the grounds that the Plaintiff’s application for the suspension of detention submitted on July 5, 2016 was based on the press report and a severe sentence against the Plaintiff, and that the Plaintiff’s children seriously collapseed due to a press report and a severe sentence against the Plaintiff, and thus, on August 1, 2016, the lower court did not err by misapprehending the legal principles on the grounds that the Plaintiff’s application for the suspension of detention, which was submitted by the Plaintiff on July 5, 2016, was unlawful.