logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 인천지방법원 2015.07.24 2015노476
명예훼손
Text

All appeals filed by the defendant and prosecutor are dismissed.

Reasons

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Defendant 1) misunderstanding of facts and misunderstanding of legal principles are merely expressed as stated in the facts of the crime that E took the clothes value of the students, and it is true that E took the clothes value. Thus, it cannot be viewed as false facts. In addition, at the time of the instant statement, the fact of taking the clothes value of E was already widely known, and the Defendant, E, and the students were gathered in order to determine the authenticity thereof, so the Defendant’s statement at the time of the instant crime is not recognized as having no possibility of spreading. 2) Since the Defendant’s statement at the time of the instant crime, there is no possibility of public performance. 30,000 won of a fine) sentenced by the lower court against the Defendant is too unreasonable.

B. In light of the testimony of the victim of mistake of facts, K, and L, this part of the facts charged is guilty, since it is recognized that the Defendant stated false facts to the effect that the Defendant did not have the victim of the statement that he did not have the victim. 2) The sentence imposed by the court of unfair sentencing on the Defendant is too uneasible and unfair.

2. The following circumstances, which can be acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and investigated at the lower court’s judgment on the Defendant’s assertion of mistake of facts and misapprehension of legal principles, i.e., ① even if the Defendant’s assertion was based on the Defendant’s assertion, E merely took part of the clothes value of the students, and did not receive a certain amount again from the Defendant, the Defendant made a statement to the effect that E received KRW 500,000 from the Defendant. This appears to be an expression that is not consistent with objective facts, and ② the Defendant, E, E, E, and I, and J were the date and place of the instant case in order to verify the developments leading up to the arrival of the price for dancing uniforms by E, which were at issue, around June 2012.

arrow