logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 서울서부지방법원 2016.12.08 2016노1146
명예훼손
Text

The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.

Reasons

1. The lower court acquitted the Defendant of the instant facts charged by misapprehending the legal doctrine, even though the Defendant’s instant act solely pertains to the public interest.

2. The summary of the facts charged is the victim E who served as the Secretary-General of the incorporated association from November 11, 1999 to February 25, 2014, and the defendant is a person who serves as the president of the G District of the said incorporated association.

On June 5, 2015, from around 07:30 to 08:30, the Defendant cited the diskettes stating that “100,000 users are employed, and H and E who embezzled money to good members are detained,” and “(G)F” in front of the Seoul Mapo-gu Seoul Western District Prosecutors’ Office’ Office located in 174 as Mapo-gu Seoul Mapo-gu Seoul.

Accordingly, the defendant has damaged the reputation of the victim E by openly pointing out facts.

3. Determination

A. The lower court’s determination is based on the following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and investigated by the lower court, namely, ① the Defendant is holding office as the president of the G District of F, an incorporated association, as a person operating e-mail business in Seoul, ② the Defendant’s alleged facts in the instant facts charged are as follows: (a) the Defendant embezzled the money of a specific social group of E, an incorporated association, and constitutes a public interest examination of the said social group; (b) there are no other matters belonging to the private sector of E; (c) the expression focuses on the public awareness of the fact that E embezzled funds; and (d) the contents of urging the prosecution to conduct strict investigation are not included; and (d) the factual fact is not only in the workplace or front of the residence of E; and (e) the Defendant’s act was conducted in the way that the prosecutor’s office, which is an investigative agency, took advantage of the fact that the Defendant’s act is true and is about the public interest.

arrow