logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 창원지방법원 2019.05.23 2018노2811
정보통신망이용촉진및정보보호등에관한법률위반(명예훼손)
Text

The judgment of the court below is reversed.

Defendant shall be punished by a fine of KRW 2,000,000.

The above fine shall not be paid by the defendant.

Reasons

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Although there is a fact that the Defendant, by mistake of facts and misapprehension of legal principles, posted the same article as the facts charged on E Blob, the content of the above posted article alone cannot be deemed as having been specified by the victim, and the Defendant’s act of posting the article for the public interest with the intent that the victim of the crime, such as himself/herself or his/her own development, would no longer have occurred, cannot be deemed as unlawful.

Nevertheless, the lower court erred by misapprehending the facts or by misapprehending the legal principles, thereby adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment.

B. The lower court’s sentence of unreasonable sentencing (2 million won of fine) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. 1) Determination of the assertion of mistake of facts and misapprehension of the legal doctrine regarding the assertion that the victim was not specified does not necessarily require a person’s name to be explicitly indicated in order to establish defamation crime against the assertion that the victim was not specified, and in a case where it is possible to find out which person is identified by considering the contents of the expression in light of the surrounding circumstances and comprehensively, the act of publicly expressing a fact that does not specify a person’s name constitutes defamation against the specific person (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 82Do1256, Nov. 9, 1982; 201Do11226, Mar. 27, 2014). In light of the foregoing legal doctrine, the following circumstances that can be recognized by the court below by evidence duly adopted and investigated by the court below, namely, (i) the posting of this case is that three persons who committed sexual assault crimes committed in “G” under the title of “GM movement - G sexual assault criminal.”

In early 1980s, HA2 was raped by a female living on the rooftop of M building, and 2 other rape crimes and 3 sexual assault crimes committed thereafter.

In addition, the fire prevention is lowered to the O located in Msan N, and one employee is dead.

arrow