logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 서울중앙지방법원 2014.05.30 2012재고정15
정보통신망이용촉진및정보보호등에관한법률위반(명예훼손)
Text

The defendant shall be innocent.

Reasons

1. At around 01:00 on October 10, 2009, the summary of the facts charged entered the following table D at the Defendant’s house of Gwanak-gu Seoul Special Metropolitan City, Seoul Special Metropolitan City, into the following table: (a) although there was no fact that the victim E Co., Ltd. (hereinafter the above Co., Ltd. and the F operating the E Co., Ltd. and the F operating the E Co., Ltd.) committed a fraudulent act, the Defendant entered the content of “the victim was informed of the damage caused by the E” as the title “E”.

In addition, from around that time to November 15, 2009, the Defendant had access to the Internet Carbook and Blouses for 10 times as shown in the annexed Crime List, and entered false information.

Accordingly, the defendant has damaged the reputation of the victim by divulging public false information through the information and communication network for the purpose of slandering the victim.

2. Determination

A. On the other hand, according to the evidence submitted by the Defendant as to whether the Defendant defames the victim by openly pointing out false facts for the purpose of slandering the victim, the Seoul Central District Court 2012No3135 Fraud case (the above judgment became final and conclusive because the Defendant did not appeal the above case) found the Defendant guilty on the ground that “the Defendant deceptions 400 million won by deceiving the Defendant because he had the claim to refund the lease deposit amount amounting to KRW 100 million, despite having the claim to refund the lease deposit amount amount equivalent to KRW 100 million,” and on October 1 and 11, 209, it appears that the Defendant sufficiently secured the damage damage caused by the fraud related to E including I and J, etc. at the time of posting the instant text (the investigation record 187 through 189). While the victim recruited the store store in the name of the party who wants to obtain the lease deposit, the victim is uncertain against the occupant in the department store, etc. while soliciting the store store.

arrow