logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 수원지방법원 2018.08.10 2018노2306
정보통신망이용촉진및정보보호등에관한법률위반(명예훼손)
Text

The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.

Reasons

1. Comprehensively taking account of the evidence submitted by the prosecutor of the gist of the grounds for appeal, the Defendant was employed as the head of the marketing team at the D shopping mall (hereinafter “D shopping mall”) and was well aware that the right to use the “E” (hereinafter “E-market”) to use the trade name is a shopping mall.

However, the Defendant, like the facts charged in the instant case, posted false facts via an information and communications network, thereby impairing the honor of the victim.

2. Determination 1) The lower court rendered a judgment of innocence against the Defendant on the grounds as stated in its reasoning.

2) In light of the following circumstances cited by the lower court’s judgment based on the evidence duly adopted and examined by the lower court, the lower court’s determination is justifiable.

① The Defendant directly managed the instant market’s operating fund, borne all expenses necessary for public relations, and settled direct profits and paid 10% of them to the shopping mall conference.

There is no fact that the employment contract has been prepared between the defendant and the commercial prosperity association.

Therefore, the evidence submitted by the prosecutor alone that the defendant was employed by the commercial prosperity council.

It is difficult to readily conclude.

② The name of the market organized by the shopping mall was “L” before the Defendant was involved.

The Defendant had several names including “E” and, in consultation with the shopping mall conference, set the name of “E” in this case.

On July 19, 2016, the Defendant entered the business entity registered as “E” on September 1, 2016, the Defendant: (a) entered the public relations marketing company that established the Defendant’s mission under the supervision of the operator of the “cultural store” in “T”; and (b) applied for the publication of the instant “E” on the instant market (the trial record No. 119 pages). The Defendant registered as the business entity on September 1, 2016, and on September 30, 2016.

arrow