logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 청주지방법원 2014.12.19 2014노464
명예훼손
Text

The judgment of the court below is reversed.

Defendant shall be punished by a fine of KRW 2,500,000.

The above fine shall not be paid by the defendant.

Reasons

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. 1) The Defendant did not make a statement to E and H as described in paragraphs (1) and (3) of the instant facts charged. Even if such statement was made, E and H were the team leader at Samsung Fire D or R branch where the Defendant was the head of the team at which the Defendant was the head of Samsung Fire D or R branch, and thus, the Defendant took such speech in the course of counseling about the issue at which he was the head of the team, E and H, so it is not recognized as having no possibility of spreading the statement, and there is no intention of defamation. 2) The Defendant did not make a statement as described in paragraph (2) of the instant facts charged at G.

B. The lower court’s sentence on the ground of unreasonable sentencing (three million won of fine) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. Regarding defamation, around December 2008, which revealed false facts about the victim, to E (Article 1 of the Public Prosecution) the following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly admitted and investigated by the court below (Article 1 of the Prosecution). ① The Defendant and the victim worked as an insurance solicitor belonging to Samsung Fire D, but around 2008, one of the customers was working for the Defendant to terminate the insurance contract and to enter into a new insurance contract via the victim, and the Defendant was thought to have intentionally avoided the Defendant’s customer, and there was no good appraisal of the victim. ② The Defendant found the victim, who was the temporary border team team leader as indicated in this part of the facts charged, had the victim recovered from his customer. From the investigation agency to the court of the court of the trial, the Defendant stated that “E was aware of the victim’s body and sold the Defendant’s body,” and the Defendant intentionally stated that “The victim actually sold the Defendant’s body.”

arrow