logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
Text
Reasons
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 서울동부지방법원 2016.06.29 2016고정372
명예훼손
Text

The sentence of sentence against the defendant shall be suspended.

Reasons

Punishment of the crime

On July 30, 2015, the Defendant was the tenant of Gwangjin-gu Seoul Special Metropolitan City, who is owned by the victim C (V, 53 years of age) and was requested by the two victims to remove goods by neglecting it in front of the main gate or the marina.

On August 2015, 2015, the Defendant, on the top of the house gate of the victim in Seoul Special Metropolitan City (Seoul Special Metropolitan City, the Defendant, as the first police officer, “Serop and the paper gate gate gate gate gate, and absolutely, the Defendant, on the top of the house gate and the paper gate gate gate gate.”

D The tenants who live under the ground.

It is necessary for the owner of the house to set up in the roadside, to gluxize the other, and to have a director before several days, and to keep a continuing failure from the date of directors.

Madernism and this day-day Hadernism and intimidation are required.

The absolute reason is that the site of absolute hand needs to be terminated.

“The honor of the victim was damaged by openly pointing out false facts.”

Summary of Evidence

1. Partial statement of the defendant;

1. Statement made by the police against C;

1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes to accusations and documentary evidence;

1. Article 307(2) and (1) of the Criminal Act and Article 307 of the same Act concerning facts constituting an offense, selection of fines;

1. Penalty fine of 200,000 won to be suspended;

1. Articles 70 and 69 (2) of the Criminal Act (in cases of conversion of KRW 100,000 per day) to detention in a workhouse;

1. The Defendant asserts that the Defendant’s act of defamation against the Defendant and his defense counsel under Article 59(1) of the Criminal Act (the fact that there is no criminal history against the Defendant, and the circumstances before and after the instant case, etc.) and Article 59(1) of the suspended sentence of sentence is true and thus, the illegality of the Defendant’s act of defamation is denied as it pertains to public interest. However, in light of the motive and purpose of the instant act of defamation acknowledged by each of the above evidence, method of crime, scope of publication of the relevant facts, etc., the Defendant’s act constitutes an

arrow