logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 청주지방법원 2018.07.18 2017고정528
정보통신망이용촉진및정보보호등에관한법률위반(명예훼손)
Text

The defendant is innocent. The summary of this judgment shall be notified publicly.

Reasons

1. The summary of the facts charged is that the Defendant connects the Internet portal site (www.daum.net) to DNA “D” or “E” and “H” in relation to G operated by the Victim F on the free debate bulletin as “H” under the title of “I” in relation to G operated by the Victim F. on the free debate bulletin.

The illegal discharge of wastewater from an enterprise that is operated on commission of the transportation of daily waste in the Dong-gun is not illegal.

h It is necessary to recover the project cost of cleaning enterprises which damage the environment, as the president, who is the president who instructs us to discharge wastewater into US dollars and to clean cleaning with the tax paid by the original citizen.

In the case of violation of the law, the punishment was posted along with the writing "."

As above, the Defendant, with a view to slandering the victim, posted a false fact openly via an information and communications network, thereby impairing the reputation of the victim.

2. In full view of the following facts and circumstances acknowledged by the record of judgment, the evidence alone presented by the prosecutor that the facts charged were proven without a reasonable doubt.

It is difficult to see it.

A. According to the photo of the Defendant’s writing posted on the Aasra Free bulletin, it is difficult to readily conclude that the fact that an employee discharges wastewater without permission is false, in G’s waste collection vehicle operated by the complainant. However, it is difficult to conclude that the fact that the Defendant discharges wastewater without permission is false (the context of this article merely indicates the fact that the waste disposal enterprise discharges wastewater without permission, and does not include the fact that the complainant instructs the complainant to discharge wastewater without permission, and the Defendant does not have the direction of the complainant with regard to the photograph that discharges wastewater without permission at the time of police investigation.

arrow