logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 춘천지방법원 2013.11.13 2013노465
모욕
Text

All appeals filed by the prosecutor against the Defendants are dismissed.

Reasons

1. According to the summary of the grounds for appeal (the fact-finding) victims and the statements of J, K, and L, etc., which were the victims at the time of the instant case, about 10 village residents at the time of the instant case can be recognized as witnessing the Defendants’ desire to have the victims, and even though it is difficult to conclude that there is no possibility to spread to the above J, K, and L, the judgment of the court below which acquitted the Defendants of the facts charged in the instant case on a different premise is erroneous and adversely affected the conclusion of the judgment.

2. Determination

A. The summary of the facts charged in the instant case is that Defendant B and Defendant A are married couple, and Defendant B is in office as the president of the D Association E Association and uses public funds of the Association, disputes with the victim F and the victim G, etc. who are members of the Association.

At around 11:00 on May 29, 2012, Defendant B expressed to the victims that “it should be cut off, sick, Sick, Sick, Sick, Sick, L et al.,” and Defendant A expressed to the victims that “it should be cut off, sick, Sick, Sick, Sick, Sick, and Sick.” Defendant A expressed to the victims that “it should be cut off, knick, knick, knick, and knick, knick, knick, knick, and knick, knick, knick, knick, and knick.”

As such, the Defendants conspired to insult the victims publicly.

B. The lower court determined that the following circumstances revealed by its adopted evidence, namely, the Defendants and the victims filed a civil lawsuit and filed a criminal complaint against each other for a long time; the victims were residents living in Ansan-gun, Hongcheon-gun, where the Defendants were living in Ansan-gun at the time of the instant case; and the victims did not have any reason to find it difficult; and the victims’ cell phone images on which the Defendants expressed their desire do not appear to be residents other than the Defendants, and the Defendants also do so.

arrow