logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 서울중앙지방법원 2013.07.25 2013노1664
정보통신망이용촉진및정보보호등에관한법률위반(명예훼손)
Text

The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

Reasons

1. In the notice of the summary of the grounds for appeal, it is difficult to view that the expression used by the Defendant was merely a negative value judgment or evaluation, and as a statement of specific facts, and it cannot be deemed that the Defendant had the intent of defamation or defamation, the judgment below convicting the Defendant of the facts charged of this case is erroneous in the misapprehension of legal principles and misapprehension of legal principles.

2. Determination

A. First, we examine whether the expression used by the Defendant is a statement of specific facts.

In the crime of defamation, the term “statement of fact” means a report or statement of a specific past or present fact in comparison with a “statement of opinion” whose content is a value judgment or evaluation, and the contents of the report or statement are able to be proven by evidence. In distinguishing a report or statement from whether it is a fact or an opinion, the determination shall be made by taking into account the overall circumstances, such as the ordinary meaning and usage of language, possibility of proof, context in which the speech in question was used, social situation in which the expression was made, etc. (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2010Do17237, Sept. 2, 201). Such a statement of fact is not limited to cases of direct expression of fact, but is not limited to cases of indirect or round-up expressions, and even in cases of indirect or round-up expressions, it is sufficient to suggest the existence of such fact in light of the overall purport of the expression, and thereby, there is sufficient specification to the extent that there is a possibility of infringing on the

(See Supreme Court Decision 91Do420 delivered on May 14, 1991, etc.). In light of the above legal principles, the comments posted in this case are as follows: “B, D, E, HC and HC and HC will be presumed to be related to the murder of the I professor’s Department; “The place where the hpe and I professor can be stamped as if they died, c religious organizations will be called “B.”

arrow