(영문) 서울동부지방법원 2015.12.11 2015노992

beta

본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.

Text

Reasons

텍스트 조절

글꼴

크기(pt)

굵기

줄 간격

자간(%)

(영문) 서울동부지방법원 2015.12.11 2015노992

명예훼손

Text

The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

Reasons

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. The facts alleged in the mistake of facts or misapprehension of the legal principles are different in detail, and instead, are consistent with the truth, and the illegality is dismissed as it is for the interests of the occupants.

B. The lower court’s sentence (one million won of fine) against the Defendant is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. In full view of the following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence presented at the lower court’s judgment, the lower court rejected the Defendant’s defense suit to the effect that the timely content conforms to the truth and is for the benefit of apartment residents, and thus, the illegality is excluded, and convicted of facts constituting an offense.

① The content that the Defendant stated that the 6th representative of the council of occupants’ representatives at the 12th council of occupants’ representatives did not reject and reject all the items on the agenda for two years, is inconsistent with objective truth even in light of the content of each statement made by the Defendant and the victim D and the content of other materials, such as the statement prepared and posted by the Defendant, and the minutes of each council of occupants’ representatives, and it cannot be deemed that it is merely a little difference from the truth or an exaggerated expression in detail.

② The district heating business promoted by the 12th council of occupants’ representatives decided to obtain the consent of the tenant households by April 30, 2013, but was postponed and postponed on the wind that did not obtain the consent of 19 households. Since D, the president of the 12th council of occupants, who was in conflict with the Defendant, was laid out as a candidate for 101 Dong representative, the Defendant stated to the effect that “D, etc. postponed and withheld the district heating business,” it is reasonable to believe that other residents intentionally or unfairly stayed the district heating business under the lead of D, etc.

(3) In order to become a dynamic that does not fulfill his/her opportal and direct duties, the defendant has run away.

유사 판례

-서울동부지방법원 2015.07.23 2015고단708

-대전지방법원 2012.09.14 2012고단1444

-의정부지방법원 고양지원 2013.04.24 2012고정1358

-의정부지방법원 고양지원 2016.07.15 2016고정180

-수원지방법원 2017.06.23 2016노8511