(영문) 대전지방법원 2020.12.23 2019노3547 | 리걸엔진

beta

본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.

Text

Reasons

텍스트 조절

글꼴

크기(pt)

굵기

줄 간격

자간(%)

(영문) 대전지방법원 2020.12.23 2019노3547

명예훼손

Text

The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.

Reasons

1. Summary of the facts charged in this case

A. On December 11, 2017, the Defendant is the representative director of “B”, who is a mobile phone dealer, and the victim C was working as an agent of the said company. The victim did not lend money with high interest or engage in credit business. On December 11, 2017, although the victim did not have any fact, the Defendant: (a) expressed to D that “I know that I would know that I would know that I would be able to get you would know about, but I would be able to get you to get you to get you to get you to get you to get you to get you to get you to get to get you to get you to get to get you to get to get you to get to get you to get to get you to get to get you to get to get to get you to get to get you to get to go to, and (b) followed by 20% of the monthly interest rate of 240%.”

B. The facts of defamation in the middle of December 2017 reveal that the victim embezzled the company funds, forged the private document of the customer, thereby committing fraud, or provided credit business with high interest. However, on December 2, 2017, the Defendant damaged the reputation of the victim by pointing out false facts while the Defendant was taking part in the meeting of the occupation F, G, H, I, and J, etc. of the company “B” on the sixth floor of the building YY E-gu, Seoan-gu, Seoan-gu, Seoan, Seoan-gu, Seocheon-gu, Seocheon-gu, Seoul, the Defendant: (a) embezzled public funds; (b) forged private documents to the customers; and (c) committed fraud against the customers; and (d) was engaged in the credit business with high interest play for the employees of the company.”

2. The judgment of the court below

A. The lower court’s determination as to defamation on December 11, 2017 is based on each of the evidence indicated in the judgment below, and considering the relationship between D and the victim, it is difficult to view that there is a possibility that the content of defamation may be disseminated to an unspecified or many unspecified persons, i.e., public performance., the content of the message sent to D, 20% of the content of the message sent by the Defendant, and 240% of the interest per annum.

유사 판례

-전주지방법원 2013.06.19 2013고정280

-의정부지방법원 고양지원 2018.08.10 2018고단240

-서울중앙지방법원 2020.11.05 2020고정1170

-청주지방법원 2020.02.13 2019고단1955

-수원지방법원 2018.11.30 2018노5440