logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 서울서부지방법원 2018.11.08 2018노750
출판물에의한명예훼손등
Text

The Defendants’ appeal is dismissed.

Reasons

1. The lower court found the Defendants guilty of the violation of the Act on Promotion of Information and Communications Network Utilization and Information Protection, Etc. by sending text messages on March 22, 2017 (Defamation) among the facts charged against the Defendants, and found the Defendants guilty of all of the remainder. The Defendants’ appeal only against the guilty portion, and the Prosecutor’s failure to appeal, became final and conclusive that the Defendants and the Prosecutor did not appeal, and thus, the scope of the lower court’s judgment on the guilty portion is limited to the aforementioned guilty portion.

2. Summary of reasons for appeal;

A. misunderstanding of facts or misunderstanding of legal principles: (a) Contents of text messages sent by the Defendants do not constitute a statement of fact merely because they did not undermine the victim’s social assessment; and (b) do not constitute a statement of fact

② The Defendants posted this article is not a column for the public notice of the site operated by Seoul Special Metropolitan City, but rather a column for the H public notice of the instant association’s H. Therefore, the court below erred in finding facts.

③ The Defendants’ act is for the public interest and thus illegal.

B. The sentence of the lower court (a fine of KRW 1.5 million for each of the 1.5 million) against the illegal Defendant is too unreasonable.

3. Determination

A. The Defendants asserted the same purport as the grounds for appeal under this part of this part of the judgment below, and the court below rejected the judgment on the above assertion in the fifth or less of the judgment below under the title "the judgment on the Defendants and the defense counsel's assertion".

Examining the above judgment of the court below in comparison with the records of this case, the judgment of the court below is just and it is erroneous in the misapprehension of legal principles as alleged by the defendant, which affected the conclusion of the judgment.

subsection (b) of this section.

(a) h.

arrow