(영문) 서울동부지방법원 2017.12.22 2017노1342

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) 서울동부지방법원 2017.12.22 2017노1342

정보통신망이용촉진및정보보호등에관한법률위반(명예훼손)등

Text

Defendant

All appeals by prosecutors are dismissed.

Reasons

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Defendant 1) misunderstanding of facts and misunderstanding of legal principles contain all true facts or the Defendant’s opinion and evaluation thereof, and the Defendant posted the above comments solely for the public interest.

Nevertheless, the lower court erred by misapprehending the facts or by misapprehending the legal doctrine, thereby convicting the instant facts charged.

2) In light of the sentencing conditions of this case’s sentencing unfair, the lower court’s sentence (the suspended sentence and suspended fine of 3 million won) is too unreasonable.

B. In light of the sentencing conditions of this case, the lower court’s sentence is too uneasible and unreasonable.

2. The lower court determined that all of the facts charged of this case is guilty on the ground that the comments posted by the Defendant contain false facts in full view of the circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and examined by the lower court regarding the Defendant’s misunderstanding of facts and misapprehension of the legal doctrine.

In light of the circumstances acknowledged by the court below, the court below's decision is just and there are errors as claimed by the defendant in addition to the following points that can be acknowledged by the above evidence.

It does not seem that it does not appear.

A. (1) In full view of the overall purport of the comments posted by the Defendant, the meaning of “non-interest” used by the Defendant was that the victims who are members of the occupants’ representative meeting give up appeal to the occupants with the intent to represent only M and N’s interests, “The victims are understood to the purport, and the victims did not file an appeal in accordance with the conclusion of 84 members present at the 84 occupants’ general meeting, so long as the victims decided not to file an appeal, they voluntarily renounced the appeal as alleged by the Defendant.

It is difficult to see that the victims have such intention and there is no other ground to recognize that they had such intention.

In addition, the defendant India.

유사 판례

-서울중앙지방법원 2018.10.26 2018노759

-대구지방법원 2020.10.30 2020노749

-수원지방법원 2017.04.27 2016노4736

-인천지방법원 2014.11.13 2014노2269

-서울북부지방법원 2016.01.21 2015노1627