(영문) 서울중앙지방법원 2016.09.30 2016노34

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) 서울중앙지방법원 2016.09.30 2016노34

모욕등

Text

The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

Reasons

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. 1) The Defendant did not post a misunderstanding of facts as to the abusive part 1) a misunderstanding of the F (hereinafter “victim”) by referring the F to “the fraud change”, etc.

2) The Defendant did not have sent e-mail as indicated in this part of the facts charged with the intimidation.

B. The punishment for one of the following reasons is too unreasonable: (a) the punishment for one of the following reasons: (b) the punishment for the sentencing (3 million won); (c) the punishment is too unreasonable.

2. Determination:

A. Comprehensively taking account of the following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly admitted and investigated by the first instance court on the assertion that the victim’s assertion of insult part is erroneous, the fact of insulting the victim can be sufficiently recognized by posting a statement to the effect that the Defendant is “the victim’s deception” in the Internet NAV bulletin board of the victim’s computer sales outside the computer.

Therefore, this part of the defendant's argument cannot be accepted.

① According to the victim’s closure photographs of a middle and high-class Korean camera, on July 23, 2014, a letter of the same content as this part of the facts charged (hereinafter “instant notice”) appears to have been posted in the name of “AD” or “D” used by the Defendant on the bulletin board of the high-class Korean camera (hereinafter “the instant notice”). Upon the notice of this case, the victim filed an accusation against the Defendant with the investigative agency as a charge of insulting the Defendant, and the victim posted a consistent letter from the investigative agency to the court of first instance, to the prosecution of first instance, and as such, posted a letter of the Defendant’s statement of “a seller’s deception.”

‘The statement was made to this effect.’

② The Defendant acknowledged the fact that he posted the instant text in an investigative agency [the Defendant had only once expressed a new letter in the instant summary order (No. 2014 High Order No. 29733), which was submitted by the Defendant on February 2, 2015, that “the Defendant had been engaged in a new letter as “the first instance of fraudulent change.”

“......”

유사 판례

-서울서부지방법원 2018.10.23 2018고정562

-대구지방법원 상주지원 2018.03.27 2017고단213

-수원지방법원 2017.08.23 2017고정368

-부산지방법원 2016.05.27 2016고정1354

-수원지방법원 안산지원 2016.04.26 2016고정379