logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 인천지방법원 2016.11.03 2016고정1625
명예훼손
Text

The defendant shall be innocent.

Reasons

1. The summary of the facts charged in this case is the defendant who is a member of the D Religious Association, and E is a person who has worked as an adviser of the D Religious Association.

At around 14:30 on April 10, 2014, the Defendant damaged the honor of “E” by openly pointing out false facts on the following grounds: (a) the executive organ did not receive money from the executive organ in relation to the case in which he embezzled public funds in the process of releasing the designation of a clan’s land as a public open space from the Jung-gu office at the time when he was in charge of adviser of the said clan; and (b) the Defendant, at the same time, damaged the reputation of “E” by openly pointing out false facts.

2. Determination

A. In full view of the following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court, the evidence alone submitted by the prosecutor is insufficient to acknowledge the fact that the defendant has damaged the honor of E as stated in the facts charged, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it.

1) In the investigation agency and this court stated, “E” and this court stated that “Defendant was not in the same place with G on April 10, 2014, and later G sent its content to Defendant with its own writing at the site where G met with the Defendant, and it would have confirmed the content of the candidate G and the exclusive order (in this case, page 12 of the investigation record; hereinafter “the instant exclusive order”) at one’s own site. It reported the contents of the above exclusive order, and the Defendant became aware of the fact that the Defendant told him as stated in the above facts charged.” 2) The instant exclusive order three (3) of the instant case (the part stating “the Defendant was the Defendant’s “the Defendant’s previous execution division was guilty of property” as “the charge of restoring the Defendant’s property to his work’s charge,” with G’s statement as “the above 4 (I, 400, 400, 400, 400, 400, 40, 00, ”).

arrow