logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 의정부지방법원 2017.11.13 2017노2367
명예훼손
Text

The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.

Reasons

1. According to the evidence submitted by the prosecutor, the summary of the grounds for appeal (misunderstanding of the facts or misapprehension of the legal principles), the defendant, by pointing out false facts, damaged the honor of the victim, and that it was not for public interest

may be appointed by a person.

Nevertheless, the court below found the defendant not guilty on the ground that the facts alleged by the defendant were not false or unreasonable, and that it was for the public interest, and thus, the illegality is excluded.

2. Determination

A. In order to establish a crime of violation of Article 307(2) of the Criminal Act, the criminal must publicly indicate the fact, and the time of the statement should be that that person's social evaluation would undermine the person's social evaluation, and the criminal should have recognized that such fact was false. In determining whether the statement is false or not, in cases where the material part is consistent with the objective fact in light of the overall purport of the statement, there is a little difference from the truth or somewhat exaggerated expression in the detailed statement, in order to determine whether the statement is false or not.

Even if it cannot be viewed as false facts (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2006Do1538, Jun. 1, 2007). In the crime of defamation, the term “public allegation of fact” refers to a report or statement of specific past or current fact in time and space, and its contents refer to a document that can be proved by evidence, and the determination or statement shall be made by considering the ordinary meaning and usage of language, the possibility of proof, the context in which the language in question was used, the context in which the speech in question was used, the social situation in which the expression was made, etc. (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2010Do17237, Sept. 2, 2011). In addition, the determination should be made by considering the overall circumstances, such as the public interest under Article 310 of the Criminal Act.

arrow