logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 서울북부지방법원 2019.06.28 2019노570
정보통신망이용촉진및정보보호등에관한법률위반(명예훼손)등
Text

The judgment of the court below is reversed.

The defendant is not guilty. The summary of the judgment against the defendant shall be published.

Reasons

Summary of Grounds for Appeal

Defendant

The content of misunderstanding of facts and misunderstanding of legal principles is not an evaluation of the personal value of victims, but an evaluation of the contents of the victims' claims.

The phrase "combruent" can be somewhat accepted by the victims.

Even if the contents are vague and frequently used, it is difficult to view it as an expression of an abstract judgment or sacrific sentiment that may undermine the social evaluation of the victims in their daily lives, and it does not constitute an element of the crime of insult.

The Defendant’s notice puts a notice mainly on the criticism of the investigation agency’s judgment while putting the victim’s attitude and assertion against reasonable doubt in the legal dispute situation with the victim. In the process of emphasizing that one’s own judgment and opinion are reasonable, the part was only the use of a word that can express the victim’s flag. Therefore, it does not violate the social rules.

In light of the overall contents and the central meaning of expression, most of the comments of criticism on the investigation process and results, and only the fact relevance or problems surrounding it is used in the process of expressing its own opinion, and the use of the term “infinitely finite” in part as it does not violate the social norms, it is justified.

The sentence of the lower court on unreasonable sentencing (one million won of fine) is too unreasonable.

The prosecutor's mistake of facts: (a) since G had a certified copy officially registered after being newly compiled with the permission of the court for entry, the Defendant cannot be deemed to be a fake family register; and (b) even though the Defendant filed a complaint against the victim due to defamation or interference with business on December 27, 2017, he misrepresented the son's son or woman of Ggrick even though he was not subject to the disposition of non-prosecution on December 27, 2017.

arrow