beta
Text
The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.
Expenses for appeal shall be borne by the plaintiff.
The purport and purport of the appeal
1. The purport of the claim;
Reasons
1. The grounds for appeal by the plaintiff in the judgment of the court of first instance do not differ significantly from the allegations in the court of first instance. Even if the evidence submitted by the plaintiff in the court of first instance different from the evidence submitted by the plaintiff in the court of first instance, and the testimony of witness V in the court of first instance, it is recognized that only the part which was found guilty in the relevant criminal judgment among the plaintiff's allegations, and that the court of first instance, which determined the amount of consolation money as KRW 7,00,000, can be recognized as legitimate in light of all the circumstances.
Therefore, the judgment of this court is citing the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, except as follows. Thus, it is accepted by the main text of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.
The part of the judgment of the first instance is "(2) other than the other part" as follows.
“The Defendant recognized AD and F, X as its ID during the investigation process and denied that the remainder is not its own ID. The investigation agency also extensively investigated the rest of ED users other than Eddididididididididididididididididididididididididididi, but eventually, the Defendant did not prosecute the remainder of the written indictment against the Defendant (Evidence A No. 1, 2, 13 through 15) other than the comments written in the written indictment of the relevant criminal judgment (Evidence A, 2, 13 through 15). Notwithstanding the execution of the search and seizure warrant by the investigative agency, the personal information of the user of Edidi, despite the execution of the search and seizure warrant by the investigative agency, is not revealed (Evidence A No. 25), and as a result, the investigation agency conducted the search and seizure warrant by the Plaintiff to be both presumed the Defendant and T, it is difficult to conclude the Plaintiff’s testimony in light of the following facts: