logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 서울동부지방법원 2014.09.30 2014고정1005
명예훼손
Text

The defendant shall be innocent.

Reasons

1. The summary of the facts charged in the instant case: (a) from October 10, 2013 to October 14, 2010, the Defendant employed three persons, such as D, from the first floor of the building in Songpa-gu Seoul Metropolitan City to distribute a copy of the certificate of the instant prosecution disposition to an unspecified number of people, following the prosecution disposition that the victim E and the victim F were indicted for violating the Punishment of Violences, etc. Act (joint injury).

Accordingly, the defendant has damaged the honor of victims by openly pointing out facts.

2. Determination

A. In a case where an act of damaging a person by openly pointing out a fact is true and solely for the public interest, it cannot be punished pursuant to Article 310 of the Criminal Act. The term “the time when a person commits an act of impairing a person’s reputation” refers to the public interest when objectively viewed the publicly alleged fact, and an actor is also required to make a statement of such fact for the public interest, subjectively. As such, the term “public interest” refers to not only to the interests of the State, society, and other general public, but also to the interests and interests of a specific social group or its entire members. Whether the publicly alleged fact pertains to the public interest or not shall be determined by comparing the contents and nature of the publicly alleged fact, the scope of the party against whom the relevant fact was publicly announced, the method of expression, etc., and the degree of infringing the reputation that may be damaged or damaged by such expression, and if the principal motive or purpose of the actor is for the public interest, the application of Article 310 of the Criminal Act may not be excluded even if other private interest purposes or motives are included.

(See Supreme Court Decision 97Do88 delivered on April 11, 1997, Supreme Court Decision 97Do158 delivered on October 9, 1998, Supreme Court Decision 2001Do3594 delivered on October 9, 2001, etc.) B.

The records of this case are recognized.

arrow