logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 제주지방법원 2015.08.13 2014고정654
명예훼손등
Text

The defendant is innocent. The summary of this judgment shall be notified publicly.

Reasons

The summary of the facts charged is the defendant who is in office as Seopopo-si C.

At around 17:00 on January 17, 2014, the Defendant: (a) did not commit a sexual indecent act against a female resident in the E office located in Seopopo City D; (b) notwithstanding that the victim F did not have committed a sexual indecent act against a female resident, the Defendant damaged the victim’s reputation by openly pointing out false facts by stating that “F had ever committed a sexual indecent act against two persons, such as community residents, G, etc., for the purpose of withdrawing the victim who was going out of the election on January 20, 2014 at the same time.”

The defendant of "2014 Highest 1151" is the head of the D Village Association affiliated with the defendant, who is entrusted with the management of the neighborhood living facilities (retail stores) located at H on April 9, 2012 from the Seopopo City on behalf of the Seopo City on behalf of D.

In order for a subsidized project operator who is entrusted with the management of neighborhood living facilities created with the national subsidy to transfer, suspend or abolish the subsidized project to another project operator due to a change in circumstances, the defendant shall obtain approval from the Minister of Government Administration and Home

Nevertheless, at around 13:00 on June 1, 2012, the Defendant, without approval from the Minister of Government Administration and Home Affairs, prepared a sub-lease contract and a NO store operation contract between the wife M in the J office located in the 1st city of Seopopopo-si and transferred the neighborhood living facilities (retail stores) to M.

Maz.

1. The part concerning defamation of “2014 Highly 654”

A. In order to establish defamation by publicly alleging false facts under Article 307(2) of the Criminal Act, the person who alleged the fact should have known that the fact was false.

(See Supreme Court Decisions 88Do1008 delivered on September 27, 198, 99Do4757 delivered on February 25, 200, etc.). Also, in order to harmonize two conflicting legal interests, such as the protection of an individual’s reputation and the guarantee of legitimate freedom of expression, Article 310 of the Criminal Act, is required.

arrow