beta
Text
The defendant's appeal is dismissed.
Reasons
1. The gist of the grounds for appeal and the period for submission of the written statement submitted on June 18, 2018 by the defendant submitted after the deadline for submission of the written statement stating the grounds for appeal are examined to the extent that it supplements legitimate grounds for appeal.
A. The judgment of the court below convicting the Defendant of the facts charged by misunderstanding of the legal principles or by misapprehending the legal principles as follows, thereby adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment.
1) On December 3, 2016, the victim posted false comments on the Internet camera bulletin board for the purpose of slandering the Defendant. The victim damaged the honor of the Defendant.
In relation to the above case, the defendant was provided with CCTV images at the D Apartment Management Office in order to file a complaint against the victim and submit it as evidentiary materials.
After all, the defendant's claim was partially accepted in Seoul Central District Court No. 2017Ga Office No. 5669650, which was a lawsuit filed by the defendant against the victim, based on the evidence, including the CCTV images of this case.
Therefore, the Defendant was able to receive the CCTV images of this case without the consent of the victim pursuant to Article 17(1)2 of the Personal Information Protection Act, on the ground that there exist grounds that it is deemed necessary for the Defendant to take an urgent interest in the property under Article 15(1)5 of the said Act (hereinafter “Personal Information Act”).
Therefore, it is justifiable for the Defendant to receive the CCTV images of this case to obtain consent from the injured party (hereinafter “instant CCTV claim”) (hereinafter “Defendant”) to provide the CCTV images of this case to the Defendant is the duties of the Director of the Office of Management of DNA Apartments A, and the Defendant was not aware of the consent of the injured party at the time (hereinafter “B assertion”). B. The punishment of the lower court, which sentenced the Defendant to the punishment unfair sentencing, is too excessive.