logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 서울북부지방법원 2017.06.16 2016노2124
명예훼손
Text

The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.

Reasons

1. The defendant's statement of defamation stated in the facts charged in the instant case is that "The defendant's husband, who is the husband of the Co., Ltd., committed a adultery with D."

However, the defendant was sexual assaulted by D from D, and D and N were also exposed to D's house.

D and C are not in common.

C, which only was sexual assaulted, was a victim of a sex crime, is not the subject of the communication, but C, solely based on the fact that C was exposed to the house of D, which was not the subject of the communication.

Since it cannot be determined by the seal, the Defendant was sufficiently aware that it would impair C’s reputation by pointing out false facts at the time of the statement in the facts charged.

I would like to say.

On the other hand, considering the various circumstances revealed in the records with respect to defamation around March 2014, the statement made by the J investigative agency is more reliable.

As such, it can be recognized that the defendant made a statement in the facts charged that defame C around March 2014, the court of Justice has damaged C's reputation.

Nevertheless, the court below erred by misapprehending the facts and pronounced not guilty of the facts charged of this case.

2. In full view of the circumstances duly explained by the lower court as to the circumstances leading up to the suspicion that the Defendant, who is her husband, was suspected of having an inhumane relationship with D and C, the evidence presented by the prosecutor, such as the witness’s statement or the statement to the investigation agency of D, alone, was the Defendant.

In addition, it is difficult to readily conclude that the facts recorded in the facts charged are false, and there was a perception that the Defendant had expressed false facts to the Defendant at the time of the speech.

In short, there is no other evidence to prove this.

On the other hand, the J has taken the same words as the facts charged from the defendant in the investigative agency.

The defendant and M will not attend the court of the court below as a witness.

arrow