(영문) 수원지방법원 2018.05.04 2017노3796 | 리걸엔진

beta

본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.

Text

Reasons

텍스트 조절

글꼴

크기(pt)

굵기

줄 간격

자간(%)

(영문) 수원지방법원 2018.05.04 2017노3796

명예훼손

Text

The judgment of the court below is reversed.

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

The above fine shall not be paid by the defendant.

Reasons

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. As to defamation in a factual manner, the Defendant, first of all, made the victim’s speech that he is the same-sex, and did not make the victim said speech at the time and place indicated in this part of the facts charged.

Even if the defendant speaks to E, performance is not recognized.

B. This part of the facts charged as to defamation in a false factual manner does not clearly specify the date, time, place, etc., causing serious trouble to the defendant’s exercise of his/her right to defense, and thus, the prosecution procedure should be dismissed as it constitutes a violation of

In addition, there is no fact that the Defendant made H the same remarks as the facts charged in this part of the charges.

2. Determination

A. As to the factual defamation, the summary of this part of the facts charged is that the Defendant refers to E from July 2012 to August 2012, 2012, at the time of the operation of E in Suwon-si E located in Suwon-si D, and “F is the same-sex.”

G is between women and pets of G, and two were wraped and drinking, and the phone was called "......."

Accordingly, the defendant has damaged the reputation of the victim by openly pointing out facts.

2) The lower court also argued to the same effect as the grounds for appeal on this part, and the lower court, based on the evidence duly admitted and investigated, stated to the effect that, namely, the following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly admitted and investigated, E had the same remarks as the Defendant stated in this part of the facts charged from the investigative agency to the court of the lower court, in light of consistency and physical strength of the content, and: (ii) E had no special relationship with the victim at the time; and (iii) there was no obligation to keep the content of the conversation with the Defendant confidential; and thus, there was a possibility that the Defendant could spread the said conversation to an unspecified or many unspecified persons (for other persons at the time,

유사 판례

-서울동부지방법원 2021.02.05 2020노818

-서울서부지방법원 2018.09.20 2018노345

-대전지방법원 2018.05.30 2017노3909

-대법원 2018.08.01 2018도7913

-서울북부지방법원 2016.05.20 2015노1779