logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 서울동부지방법원 2017.10.20 2017고정914
명예훼손등
Text

Defendant shall be punished by a fine of 1.5 million won.

If the defendant does not pay the above fine, KRW 100,000.

Reasons

Punishment of the crime

On October 18, 2016, at the entrance of the elevator of the building 238 building located in Songpa-gu Seoul apartment complex, Songpa-gu Seoul apartment complex, the Defendant stated two in the white paper, “D, D, the classical Domar Dom Dom Dom Dom Dom, illegal representation, and the president of the same group, the amount of KRW 50,000,000,000,000,0000,000,0000,0000,000,0000,000,000,000,000,000,000, and00,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,00,000,00,00,00,00,00,00.

It is true that the victims D did not return the funds from the company in connection with the project, or embezzlement such as personal use of the public funds of the apartment tenant representative meeting.

As a result, the Defendant openly damaged the reputation of the victim by pointing out false facts, and insultd the victim.

Summary of Evidence

1. Partial statement of the defendant;

1. Statement made by the police against D;

1. Copy of defamation document;

1. A statement and reference materials of the complainant;

1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes to output of non-prosecution decision;

1. Article 307(2) of the Criminal Act and Article 311 of the Criminal Act concerning facts constituting an offense;

1. Articles 40 and 50 of the Criminal Act of the Commercial Competition;

1. Selection of an alternative fine for punishment;

1. Article 70(1) and Article 69(2) of the Criminal Act to attract a workhouse;

1. Determination on the assertion by the defendant and his/her defense counsel under Article 334(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act

1. The defendant and his defense counsel asserted that even if such false facts were to be found in the contents of the notices to be attached to the facts constituting the crime as stated in the judgment of the defendant (hereinafter "the contents of the notice in this case"), they were believed to be true and reasonable grounds were reasonable, and that illegality is excluded since they are solely for the public interest.

2. Determination

(a) patent;

arrow