(영문) 울산지방법원 2016.04.21 2015노1497 | 리걸엔진

beta

본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.

Text

Reasons

텍스트 조절

글꼴

크기(pt)

굵기

줄 간격

자간(%)

(영문) 울산지방법원 2016.04.21 2015노1497

정보통신망이용촉진및정보보호등에관한법률위반(명예훼손)

Text

The judgment below

Part of the cost of lawsuit, excluding the portion of the cost of lawsuit, shall be reversed.

A fine shall be imposed on the defendant 1,00.

Reasons

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Since the misunderstanding of facts and the legal principles did not explicitly state the name of the victim, the crime of defamation was not established, and the defendant did not have any awareness of the falsity even if it was false, even if it was not false.

In addition, the defendant posted the article of this case in order to inform the damaged person of the lack of morality as a journalist, and there was no purpose of slandering.

B. The defendant's behavior is an expression of right to know in accordance with the freedom of speech and freedom of expression and constitutes a justifiable act.

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

B. The sentence sentenced by the lower court to the Defendant (an amount of two million won) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. 1) Determination as to the assertion of misunderstanding of facts does not necessarily require a person’s name to be explicitly stated in order to establish a crime of defamation of reputation. Thus, if a person’s name is not explicitly indicated in the statement of false facts is judged in light of the surrounding circumstances and the contents of his/her expression, it constitutes a crime of defamation of reputation of the specific person (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2011Do11226, Mar. 27, 2014). In light of the aforementioned legal principles, according to the following evidence duly adopted and investigated by the court below, the article prepared by the defendant does not refer the victim as “YC” and did not state his/her real name. However, considering the specific contents and expressions of the above article, if the victim or his/her employee or any other person in a dispute between the defendant and the victim becomes aware that YC as referred to in the article is designated as the victim.

Since it is reasonable to see that the defendant is the defendant.

참조판례

-대법원 2014. 3. 27. 선고 2011도11226 판결

유사 판례

-대구지방법원 2016.04.15 2015노1635

-청주지방법원 2017.02.03 2016노792

-수원지방법원 성남지원 2016.05.26 2016고정186

-수원지방법원 2016.01.22 2015노1454

-대구지방법원 2016.05.26 2015노1802