logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 서울중앙지방법원 2019.10.25 2019노1105
정보통신망이용촉진및정보보호등에관한법률위반(명예훼손)
Text

The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

Reasons

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Error of facts and misapprehension of legal principles are merely a mere transfer of the writing written by a third party, and it does not constitute defamation, but ② The contents of this article were false, false, or false, and ③ there was no purpose of defamation.

Nevertheless, the lower court, which found the Defendant guilty of the facts charged of this case, erred by misapprehending the facts and thereby adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment, or by misapprehending the legal doctrine on defamation.

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

2. Judgment on misconception of facts and misapprehension of legal principles

A. In the lower court’s determination, the Defendant asserted the above misconception of facts and misapprehension of legal principles, and the lower court, based on the evidence duly adopted and investigated by the lower court, determined that the Defendant posted the instant text for the purpose of slandering the victim, even though the Defendant knew that the content of the instant text was false or did not know at least, although he knew that the content of the instant text was false, or did not know at least.

① Although the Defendant stated “R 201.019” at the bottom of the instant text, it is difficult to clearly understand that the instant text was merely transferred.

In addition, the Defendant directly prepared the title of the instant text, and revised the “compact” to “self-feit”, thereby editing and correcting the text.

② The Defendant did not disclose the specific source of this case.

Before posting the instant text, it posted the instant text using a decent expression as if it was a clear fact even though it was not based on whether the source was reliable or directly verifying the authenticity.

3. Although the defendant alleged that he/she posted this case on his/her personal belt for the purpose of keeping data, he/she may do so.

arrow