logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 부산지방법원 2017.10.18 2017고정682
정보통신망이용촉진및정보보호등에관한법률위반(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 who uses the “D” in CKafin on the following website.

No person shall conceal any fact openly through an information and communications network with intent to defame any other person, thereby impairing the reputation of any other person.

Nevertheless, the defendant was the Chairperson of the Residents' Representative Council in Busan Northern E-gu.

F Upon dismissal of the F, for the purpose of slandering the victim G, the title " "" is to disclose the recording record, which is an illegal cause, from its home, from July 31, 2016, at around 18:52, around E 302 Dong 3401, connected from the cell phone to CKaf (C) to the cell phone on the next website, and is to disclose the content of the recording record, which is an illegal cause.

Under the title of “I”, when disclosing the conversation between Defendant, H, F, and I, “I will return if you come to the so-called “I,” and (G) I would offer a proposal within 60 million won.”

In addition, this paper will bring about a studio. Prepaid, “I will not return if you have to do so,” and “I will have to do so, so we will have to do so. I will have to do so.”

“The victim’s reputation was damaged by openly disclosing the fact by posting a photo containing the victim’s name and the victim’s photo on the bulletin board.”

Summary of Evidence

1. Partial statement of the defendant;

1. Each legal statement of witness G and H;

1. A protocol concerning the examination of partially the police officers of the accused;

1. Statement made by the police with H;

1. Written complaint - Documents printed on comments, and printed out on title 1; and

1. Determination as to the assertion by the defendant and defense counsel of the copy of the transcript of recording

1. The alleged defendant and his defense counsel did not have a purpose of slandering, because the content of the notice as mentioned in the ruling is related to the public interest to allow E apartment residents to make a correct judgment.

The argument is asserted.

2. Determination

(a) facilitating use of information and communications networks;

arrow