logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 광주지방법원 2020.12.09 2019노3191
정보통신망이용촉진및정보보호등에관한법률위반(명예훼손)
Text

The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.

Reasons

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal (the factual error) ① Even if there was no established criteria for the qualifications for attending the Village Development Committee, it is reasonable to view that the victim, who is in the position of the Saemaul leader and the head of youth center, was eligible to attend the meeting. Therefore, the Defendant’s statement that the victim did not have been eligible to attend the meeting was aware of false facts and publicly alleged, but the lower court did not recognize it and

② Since it is not necessary to have authority to proceed with a meeting of the Village Development Committee, posting a statement to the attending person as if the attending person were abusive and verbal abuse while the defendant did not have the right to proceed with the meeting is that the social value of the victim has lowered.

Nevertheless, the judgment of the court below which acquitted the Defendant of the facts charged in this case without making a determination of the aforementioned false facts.

③ In the part of the statement posted by the victim, “(a person who does not have a history or rank)” (hereinafter “the part of the written indictment”) is an expression that may undermine the social value of the victim, but the lower court did not make a determination on the said part. Even if the said part does not constitute a statement of specific facts, the lower court erred by misapprehending the legal doctrine regarding the fact that the crime of insult could be established, even if it did not constitute a statement of specific facts.

2. Determination

A. In order to establish the crime of defamation by a false statement of facts or the crime of defamation by publication of false facts under Article 309(2) and (1) of the Criminal Act regarding the determination (related to the victim’s eligibility to attend a meeting) on the proposal (hereinafter “information and communications network Act”), the Defendant’s statement of facts is false and the fact is false, and such false perception is false.

arrow