logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 부산지방법원 2014.06.12 2013노2304
정보통신망이용촉진및정보보호등에관한법률위반(명예훼손)등
Text

All convictions against the defendant among the judgment of the court below shall be reversed.

A defendant shall be punished by a fine of 3.5 million won.

Reasons

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. In light of the prosecutor’s assertion of mistake of facts and misapprehension of legal principles (Dismissal of prosecution in the judgment of the court below No. 2014No. 850) and the victim G filed a complaint against the defendant as defamation, etc., and then the investigative agency rendered punishment as to the assault case on August 30, 2011, and the court stated that “the statement that the defendant is not subject to punishment, but was sent to police officers; Provided, That there is only a reply to the police officer that the defendant was killed and went back to the police officer,” and it is difficult to see that the victim’s intent not to punish the defendant as to the above part of the assault was clearly expressed, the court below dismissed this part of the prosecution on the contrary ground, and erred by misapprehending the legal principles as to “a declaration of intent not to punish the defendant for the crime of no punishment for anti-psing,” which affected the conclusion of the judgment.

B. The Defendant’s punishment (the first judgment: 1.5 million won, the second judgment: 500,000 won, and the fourth judgment: 2 million won) on the Defendant’s assertion of unreasonable sentencing is too unreasonable.

The defendant did not appeal against the judgment of the third court.

2. Judgment on the prosecutor's misconception of facts and misapprehension of legal principles

A. On August 30, 201, the Defendant: (a) 09:30 on August 30, 201, the Defendant expressed a bath to request the Defendant to recommend a person who wants in the process of commission of election management members; and (b) assaulted the Victim on the face and head of the Victim twice in drinking, on the ground that the Victim G (the age of 58) rejected the request.

B. The lower court’s judgment: (a) comprehensively based on the evidence duly adopted and examined by the lower court; (b) on August 30, 201, the police arrested the Defendant on August 30, 201; and (c) the victim was also the same as the earth; and (b) the Defendant thereafter was the victim.

arrow