(영문) 서울중앙지방법원 2013.12.13 2013고정5400

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) 서울중앙지방법원 2013.12.13 2013고정5400

모욕

Text

Defendant shall be punished by a fine of 200,000 won.

If the defendant does not pay the above fine, 50,000 won.

Reasons

Punishment of the crime

On December 14, 2012, at the defendant's house located in Jongno-gu Seoul, Jongno-gu, Seoul, the defendant posted a statement to the effect that "E's member of the redevelopment association, who is a person with the Internet NAC's free bulletin board," "D," "E," had the right to objection and left the redevelopment association," thereby, members of the redevelopment association were bombing, and E and their daily allowances were removed (additional: F)" by referring to the victim G using the clinic called "F," and referring to the victim G using the clinic, "I would not have any number of garry water, E, E, and E, who would not have any desire to do so."

Summary of Evidence

1. Defendant's legal statement;

1. The second written statement of the suspect interrogation protocol against the defendant (the defendant saw that the victim was so-called "Patop," and the victim was faced with the atmosphere of "Patop," while carrying out the activities of "Patop", see, e.g., Articles 6 through 8 of the first written statement of the investigation record (the statement that the victim posted the comments of this case).

1. Entry of the first and second police statements in G in the police statement;

1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes governing Internet outputs;

1. Relevant Article 311 of the Criminal Act concerning facts constituting an offense and Article 311 of the Selection of Punishment;

1. Articles 70 and 69 (2) of the Criminal Act for the detention of a workhouse;

1. In light of the details of the posting of this case, which can be recognized by the evidence prior to the conviction of Article 334(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act, and the contents of this article, the comments of this case can be acknowledged as a fact that the comments of this case are expressing an abstract judgment or sacrific sentiment that could undermine the social evaluation of the victim by criticizeing the victim, and the facts of insult of the judgment of the defendant can be acknowledged.

Supreme Court Decision 2010Do13840 Decided January 12, 2012

참조조문

유사 판례

-서울북부지방법원 2015.04.23 2014고정932

-서울중앙지방법원 2017.01.17 2016가단5125692

-서울중앙지방법원 2013.10.18 2013노2543

-서울남부지방법원 2018.05.31 2018나51193

-서울중앙지방법원 2018.05.25 2017나79433