logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 수원지방법원 2017.06.30 2016노7880
정보통신망이용촉진및정보보호등에관한법률위반(명예훼손)
Text

The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

Reasons

1. The summary of the grounds of appeal 1) The Defendant’s misunderstanding of the facts as to each of the facts charged in the instant case posted the instant text on the Internet bulletin board (hereinafter “instant text”) is not false, but rather false, and as such, the Defendant posted the instant text at the mind that no longer victims may occur, there is a purpose of slandering the Defendant.

shall not be effective.

2) The sentence of the lower court that is unfair in sentencing (one million won in penalty) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination 1) Comprehensively taking account of the evidence duly admitted and examined by the lower court as to the assertion of mistake of facts, the following circumstances are recognized.

① The victims are the representative director of K Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as “K”) at the investigative agency. The actual operator is G, and he is merely a worker in charge of the field employed by him, and he also stated that he is about KRW 39 million of unpaid benefits (see evidence records 3, 4, and 8). Moreover, a written confirmation of overdue payment (see evidence records 18 to 19 pages) conforms to the victim’s above statement.

② The victim stated at the investigative agency that, with respect to the field of civil works in the wife population O (hereinafter “the instant site”), the construction cost that K did not pay to the subcontractor was approximately KRW 350 million,00,000,000,000,000 for the construction cost that the Defendant did not pay (see evidence record 3,4, and 8 pages). Moreover, the Defendant’s statement that the construction cost that was not paid to K was approximately KRW 145,00,000,000,000,000,0000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,00

③ At the investigative agency, K paid to the subcontractor part of the KRW 580,000,00 which K received from the implementer of the instant site, and the Defendant was partly aware of the intent of personal criticism of the victim while posting the instant text.

The statement was also made (see, e.g., record 29, 30). Such circumstances.

arrow