logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 창원지방법원 진주지원 2015.11.27 2015고정96
명예훼손
Text

Defendant shall be punished by a fine of KRW 1,000,000.

When the defendant does not pay the above fine, 100,000 won.

Reasons

Punishment of the crime

The defendant is a person engaged in agriculture.

At around 14:00 on December 27, 2012, the Defendant damaged the reputation of the victim by openly pointing out false facts by stating that “D is a feasible election in which the feass in feass are held,” at a place with a large of 5 to 6 persons, such as E residing in the same village, even though the victim D had not sold the feass in feass, and that “D is a feassian election.”

Summary of Evidence

1. Application of each of the Acts and subordinate statutes on witness E and D's statutory statements;

1. Relevant Article 307 (2) of the Criminal Act concerning criminal facts, the choice of a fine, and the choice of a fine;

1. Articles 70 (1) and 69 (2) of the Criminal Act for the detention of a workhouse;

1. As to the Defendant’s assertion under Article 334(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act, the Defendant did not make a statement as to the facts constituting the crime in his/her case where he/she is in E, etc., and denies the instant crime.

However, in full view of each of the evidence in the holding, the following circumstances, i.e., ① a witness E consistently made a statement to the effect that he/she appeared like the facts stated in the crime committed by the Defendant in the investigation agency and this court; ② there is no circumstance to doubt the credibility of the witness E’s statement; ② according to the witness E’s statement in this court and in the investigation agency, D appears to have not sold this kind of tree; ③ the Defendant appears to have made a false statement to E, etc.; ③ Meanwhile, the Defendant merely argued to the effect that “D received money from the State at the time of raising objection, because it was not used for giving money, and returned the money after being tried.” However, according to the witness D’s statement in this court, D’s subsidy related to the business of growing the way from Scheon-si.

arrow