2016, 494 Definite

A person shall be appointed.

section 5(3)(2)(2)(2)(3)(3)(1)(3)(1)(1)(

Attorneys Yellow-○, et al.

August 9, 2017

Defendant shall be punished by a fine of KRW 1,00,00.

Defendant who has converted 100,000 won into one day when the above fine has not been paid;

shall be confined in a workhouse.

In order to order the provisional payment of an amount equivalent to the above fine.

Criminal facts

피고인은 2015 . 8 . 13 . 불상지에서 , 불특정 다수인이 열람을 할 수 있는 피고인의 페 이스북 게시판에 피해자인 고양시장 B를 지칭하면서 , " 고소왕 B씨는 꿈쩍도 하지 않습 니다 . ( 중략 ) 비열한 독재자 B와의 이 싸움을 멈추지는 않을 것이다 . " 라는 글을 게시하 고 , 2015 . 8 . 17 . 피고인의 페이스북 게시판에 피해자를 지칭하면서 " 고양시장 B가 사 기업에 공짜로 넘겨줬던 학교부지 ( 중략 ) 학교부지 무상 이전에 저항하는 시민들을 선 거법으로 협박하여 갖은 정치술수를 부렸던 자가 바로 시장 B였습니다 . ( 중략 ) 다급해 진 시장 B는 이제 남의 눈치고 염치고 다 접어두고 저런 파렴치한 짓을 저지르고 있 습니다 . " 라는 글을 게시하고 , 2015 . 3 . 30 . 불특정 다수인이 열람을 할 수 있는 피고인 의 네이버 블로그에 " 비겁한 고양시장 B " 라는 제목 하에 , 피해자를 지칭하면서 " 원래 거짓말 잘 하는 나쁜 사람인 줄은 알았지만 이렇게까지 비겁하고 야비한 줄은 정말 몰 랐다 . ( 중략 ) 고양시민의 고혈을 부패한 탐관오리인 B씨를 통해 수혈 받아 기생하는 ( 중략 ) 야비하고 무능하고 부패한 이들의 3박자가 맞아 떨어졌기에 가능했던 것이다 . 고양시의 기득권 세력이 총망라된 " 부패카르텔 " 이라는 내용의 글을 게시하고 , 2015 . 7 . 18 . 피고인의 네이버 블로그에 " 평소부터 거짓말과 협잡에 빼어난 실력을 발휘해왔던 B 시장과 그 측근 무리들은 이번에도 물타기를 하며 본질을 흐리고 있다 . ( 생략 ) " 이라는 내용의 글을 게시하고 , 2015 . 8 . 22 . 피고인의 네이버 블로그에 피해자를 지칭하면서 " 당신은 북괴 무리들에게는 그리도 관대하면서 자기 시민들은 왜 그리 못 때려잡아 안 달입니까 ? 입만 열면 거짓말에 하는 행동마다 불의로 가득찬 당신 " 이라는 내용의 글을 게시하였다 .

Accordingly, the Defendant openly insultingd the victim via the Internet. 1)

Summary of Evidence

1. The defendant's partial statement in court;

1. Each legal statement of witness B and Kim ○-○

1. Partial statement of the suspect interrogation protocol of the defendant by the prosecution;

1. A copy of the pagebook, and a copy of the photograph;

1. A complaint;

Application of Statutes

1. Relevant Article of the Criminal Act and the selection of punishment for the crime;

Article 311 (Selection of Fine in General Provisions of Criminal Act)

1. Detention in a workhouse;

Articles 70(1) and 69(2) of the Criminal Act

1. Order of provisional payment;

Article 334(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act

Judgment on Defendant and Defense Counsel’s argument

1. Summary of the assertion

A. The Defendant’s comments contain some excessive expressions, which alone cannot be deemed to give the victim a sense of flaging, and there was no criminal intent to insult the Defendant.

B. Even if the expression of the Defendant’s obscinary constitutes insult, the Defendant criticizes the Defendant for the benefit of the public on the basis of objective grounds in the process of raising suspicion against the victim in the position of the senior market. Accordingly, the Defendant’s act is a justifiable act that does not violate the social rules and is thus dismissed as an unlawful act.

2. Determination

A. Determination as to whether the offense of insult constitutes the constituent elements

The offense of insult is an offense that causes an external reputation, which means the social evaluation of the value of a person, and refers to the expression of an abstract judgment or sacrific sentiment, which may undermine the victim’s external reputation, without mentioning any fact. Furthermore, the offense of insult is established by openly expressing an abstract judgment or sacrific sentiment, which is likely to undermine the victim’s external reputation. As such, the victim’s external reputation is not practically infringed or is not at risk of infringement upon specific and actual reputation (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 2016Do9674, Oct. 13, 2016; 203Do3972, Nov. 28, 2003; 2003Do3972, etc.). In light of the contents and context of the victim’s comments and the overall contents and content of the victim’s appraisal, the overall contents and degree of the victim’s relationship with the Defendant at the time of the lawful adoption and examination; and the overall contents and degree of the victim’s expression and its overall relevance.

B. Determination as to whether a party constitutes a justifiable act

1) Even in a case where a certain article contains insulting expressions, if it is merely a part of insulting expressions in the process of clarifying facts or opinions and emphasizing the propriety of such facts based on the premise of objective feasibility by taking into account the overall purport, method of expression, etc. of this article, barring any other special circumstances, it shall be deemed that illegality is excluded pursuant to Article 20 of the Criminal Act, as it does not violate the ordinary rules, barring any other special circumstances. However, even if the filing of issue of public official concerns should be widely permitted, even if it is not permitted in bad faith without any specific circumstance, the method of expression should be chosen on the basis of respecting the other party’s character, and even if there are matters to be criticized, if there is any matter of public character due to an ambiguous expression, it cannot be established (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2008Do4684, Apr. 26, 2008).

2) In light of the aforementioned legal principles, the following circumstances acknowledged by the court as evidence duly adopted and examined by the defendant, namely, ① the defendant used insulting expressions against the victim as seen earlier. In particular, the article posted by the defendant on August 13, 2015 and on August 17, 2015 consists of criticism and evaluation of the victim’s character. The Defendant’s comments posted on the Blolob are used repeatedly for the victim’s insulting expression; ② In light of the overall purport and context of this article, the method and frequency of expression, and the degree and intensity of insulting expressions, etc., it is difficult to view that the Defendant’s expression of the victim’s opinion cannot be viewed as being justifiable in light of the following circumstances, even if the Defendant’s expression was intended to raise doubt about the public concern, it is difficult to view that the Defendant’s expression of the victim’s opinion cannot be viewed as being justifiable in light of the following circumstances, and it is difficult to view that the Defendant’s expression of the victim’s opinion was made in part as a legitimate means and degree of action.

Reasons for sentencing

1. The scope of punishment: Fine not exceeding 2,00,000 won;

2. Determination of sentence: Fines 1,00,000 won 2);

In light of the content, method, frequency, etc. of the crime of this case, the crime of this case is not less easily deemed to be committed, the perpetrator denies and does not reflect the crime, and the victim did not reach an agreement with the victim, and there are some unfavorable circumstances to the victim.

On the other hand, the Defendant has no record of criminal punishment; some of the crimes have occurred in the process of making a door-making on the transfer of ○○ and C&T school site to the victim who is a public interest in high-yang market as a public figure; and there is room for consideration in the process; and there is also some circumstances favorable to the victim.

In light of the above circumstances and other factors of sentencing, such as the character and conduct, age, environment, motive and background of the crime, circumstances after the crime, and attitude in this court, etc., all the factors of sentencing appearing in the records and arguments of this case shall be considered and the sentence shall be determined as ordered.

Parts of innocence

1. Summary of the facts charged

On August 15, 2015, the Defendant referred to the victim on the Defendant’s Pest bulletin board that allows many unspecified people to peruse, and referred to the victim “B, a large-scale de facto de facto de facto de facto de facto de facto de facto de facto de facto de facto de facto de facto de facto de facto de facto de facto de facto de facto de facto de facto de facto de facto de facto de facto de facto de facto de facto de facto de facto de facto de facto de facto the victim. 3)

2. Determination

According to the statement of evidence No. 6, the defendant, on August 15, 2015, is too tool to see the high market B, the reported market, or . The crime committed between them is not known of this letter, but is uneasy, which inevitably leads to uneasy and uneasy. The defendant, as it is so bad, should have done so, at the upper line as soon as soon as possible. It is appropriate before the latter meeting. It is nothing more than what is the case of this brush. There is no evidence to acknowledge that the above facts were used in the bulletin board, and there is no evidence to acknowledge that the prosecutor submitted the above facts from the date of "Sul market" as it is called the "Sule market" on its own. It is hard to find that there is no evidence to acknowledge that the above facts are different from the above facts of the facts charged.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the above facts charged should be pronounced not guilty under the latter part of Article 325 of the Criminal Procedure Act because it constitutes a case where there is no proof of a crime. However, as long as the court found the defendant guilty of insult in a single comprehensive crime, the judgment of innocence shall not be rendered separately.

Judges Cho Jong-sung

Criminal Complaint by Judges

Judges Lee Jae-ho

1) The prosecutor prepared by the defendant on August 13, 2015, and on August 17, 2015, each page of the defendant's bulletin board, March 30, 2015, and the prosecutor's office on March 30, 2015.

7. The parts of the expressions corresponding to insult in the 18.i.e. and on August 22, 2015, among the parts of the NAV Blug's text, shall be inspected and cut cut.

Since I written indictment with specific characters, I make decisions only on this part.

2) As to the offense of insult, the sentencing criteria are not set.

3) On August 15, 2015, the first written indictment of this case, the page of another date in the judgment of the defendant on August 15, 2015

Unlike posting letters on the bulletin board and the NAB Blobb Blobs, the insulting part of the insulting part shall be identified by black and swebling letters;

I did not have any part, and this Court written on August 15, 2015 at the second preparatory hearing date on August 15, 2015.

The court ordered the prosecutor to specify the prosecuted part as a crime of insult, and the prosecutor ordered the prosecutor to do so on March 2017.

31. A written application for changes in indictment of a person: "The part of the indictment, which is marked with a snick and snick letters, is marked by the snick force";

As an insulting expression against the victim, a specific indictment was made.