logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 수원지방법원 평택지원 2018.10.11 2018고정1
신용훼손등
Text

Defendant shall be punished by a fine of one million won.

If the defendant does not pay the above fine, KRW 100,000.

Reasons

Punishment of the crime

The Defendant is a person who served as a victim B’s on-site leader from March 1, 2015 to September 30, 2016.

1. On September 2016, the Defendant committed the crime at the end of the last day of September 2016, at the E office operated by Pyeongtaek-si C around the end of September 2016, the fact is that the victim company did not go against the duty of payment, and it is difficult to receive money even if the transaction was conducted.

Disseminating false facts in the manner referred to as ", thereby damaging the credibility of the victim company and hindering its business."

2. Around January 2017, the Defendant committed a crime: (a) at the H office of a business entity H operated by G in Pyeongtaek-siF around January 2017, the Defendant was not in a situation where the Victim Company was not in arrears; (b) but did not pay a salary for employees.

Disseminating false facts in the manner referred to as ", thereby damaging the credibility of the victim company and hindering its business."

Summary of Evidence

1. Each legal statement of witness I, D and G;

1. Statement made to I by the police;

1. A complaint filed by I;

1. A written confirmation of each fact of D and G;

1. Investigation Report - Attachment of the documents to be submitted by the complainant [the defendant and his defense counsel] asserts that the defendant did not speak to the effect that the defendant was "the date of default" or "the date of default" as stated in the facts constituting the crime.

However, according to each of the above evidence, it can be acknowledged that the Defendant told D and G to the effect that “the victim company is unable to receive money even if it goes in default and makes transactions,” and that “the victim company has retired from office.”

Therefore, we cannot accept the above argument.

Application of Statutes

1. Relevant legal provisions of the Criminal Act and Articles 314(1), 313, and 313 of the Criminal Act concerning the choice of punishment;

1. The former part of Article 37 of the Criminal Act, and Articles 38 (1) 2 and 50 of the same Act, which aggravated concurrent crimes;

1. Article 70(1) and Article 69(2) of the Criminal Act to attract a workhouse;

1. Article 334 (1) of the Criminal Procedure Act concerning the order of provisional payment;

arrow