logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 의정부지방법원 2017.09.21 2017노1358
명예훼손
Text

The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

Reasons

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal (misunderstanding of facts) refers to the victim’s behavior at the time and place specified in the facts charged, and “Wurddo dyke stolens inside a coffee.”

There is no word “......”

Nevertheless, the judgment of the court below that found the Defendant guilty of the facts charged of this case is erroneous.

2. The lower court also asserted the same purport as the above grounds for appeal.

As to this, the lower court rejected Defendant 1’s allegation by comprehensively taking account of the circumstances in its ruling, thereby finding Defendant 1 guilty.

In light of the following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly admitted and investigated by the court below and the court below, the above judgment of the court below is just and acceptable, and there is an error of law by misunderstanding of facts, as alleged by the defendant.

subsection (b) of this section.

Therefore, Defendant’s assertion of mistake of facts cannot be accepted.

A. The Defendant brought to the victim and others, including the victim, a pop-up class lecture room (hereinafter “the instant lecture room”) on the 9th floor of the instant department store (hereinafter “the instant lecture room”) or around it.

“A person who was asked on the eightth floor of the department store, and entered the toilet alone on the eightth floor of the department store and brought any “nick.”

(1) 5 Doz. 5 Doz. Doz. Doz.

Han Don-dydyke is not Han Don-dyke

It argues to the effect that “only” means “.”

B. However, in full view of the statements of the witness of the lower court, including the victim, the Defendant committed verbal abuse to the victim (such as the victim, F, G, H, and J, etc.) around the instant lecture room immediately after the completion of the class on the day of the instant case, and continued the victim’s daily behavior and the verbal abuse (Article 35, 76, 77, 121, 126, 128, 133, 134, 139 pages).

On September 25, 2015, the Defendant reported CCTV on September 25, 2015.

arrow