logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 수원지방법원 2016.06.08 2015노4118
공갈등
Text

The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.

Reasons

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Comprehensively taking into account the evidence submitted by the prosecutor as to defamation, considering the date and place of the instant crime, the reason why the Defendant was found in the victim’s company, the Defendant’s statement contents, and the relationship between the victim and K, performance and the possibility of dissemination are recognized. Therefore, although this part of the facts charged against the Defendant can be fully recognized, the lower court rendered a verdict of innocence against the Defendant on the grounds that performance is denied, the lower court erred by misapprehending the facts and adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment.

B. The sentence of the lower court that is unfair in sentencing (2 million won in penalty) is too unhued and unfair.

2. Determination

A. On June 12, 2012, the summary of this part of the facts charged is that the Defendant, at the 12th team leader office of the victim C around 07:20 on June 12, 2012, the victim did not have been found to have consumed the Defendant’s money. However, in the case where the employees in the office were heard, the Defendant is a finite accomplice that finite father fined 1.8 billion won.

How this finites can be done to a securities company dealing with money.

The victim’s reputation was damaged by openly pointing out false facts through the large interest called “to be retired.”

2) The lower court determined that the Defendant publicly stated the facts solely based on the evidence submitted by the Prosecutor alone, in light of the following: (a) the lower court stated in the court’s court that the witness K stated that “the Defendant, C, and C did not have or had little employees for 7:0:00 to 8:0,000; (b) the Defendant did not talk to any other person; and (c) the Defendant considered that the employees who had worked in the office at the time did not have any talked to the other person; and (d) the relationship with the victim and K; (b) the position of K; and (c) the Defendant and the victim and K meted.

It is difficult to see, and

arrow