logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 의정부지방법원 2013.08.07 2012고정3057
명예훼손
Text

Defendant shall be punished by a fine of KRW 1,000,000.

If the defendant does not pay the above fine, 50,000 won.

Reasons

Punishment of the crime

At around 15:00 on June 7, 2012, the Defendant attended the trial of the Defendant’s wife C’s fraud case at the court of Seocho-gu Seoul Central District Court 320, Seocho-gu, Seoul Central District Court on Seocho-gu, Seoul, and thereby undermining the honor of the victim by openly pointing out false facts by openly pointing out the victim’s “the victim and E” within the court with ten members, although the victim D and E are not in an internal relationship.

Summary of Evidence

1. Defendant's legal statement;

1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes on witness D's legal statement;

1. Relevant Article 307 (2) of the Criminal Act concerning criminal facts, the choice of a fine, and the choice of a fine;

1. Articles 70 and 69 (2) of the Criminal Act for the detention of a workhouse;

1. The defendant and his defense counsel's assertion on the assertion of the defendant and his defense counsel under Article 334 (1) of the Criminal Procedure Act refers to the fact that D and E are interested in internal relations, and the defendant's sound-friendly act in court is dismissed as a justifiable act that was conducted in order to correct false facts and disclose truth during the lawsuit, and its illegality is excluded.

Whether a certain act is justified as an act that does not contravene the social norms, and the illegality is excluded, should be determined on an individual basis by considering the following specific circumstances: (i) the legitimacy of the motive or purpose of the act; (ii) the reasonableness of the means or method of the act; (iii) the balance between the protected interests and the infringed interests; (iv) the urgency of the act; and (v) the supplementary nature that there is no other means or method other than the act.

(see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2002Do5077, Dec. 26, 2002). G, H, and C’s statement of confirmation of facts alone are insufficient to acknowledge the fact that the victim D and E are in an internal relationship, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it, and further, the cause, circumstance, and circumstances of the occurrence of the case recognized by the record.

arrow