logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 전주지방법원 2018.12.13 2018노93
명예훼손등
Text

All appeals by the Defendants are dismissed.

Reasons

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Defendant A1) misunderstanding of the facts or misunderstanding of the legal principles (the point of defamation and damage to property) ① Defendant A merely asked the victim D whether he received the plastic bags, and did not have any false statement (the allegation No. 1). ② Defendant A was placed at once again so as to see the posted document as a son’s content, and was placed at once again (the second assertion) and did not have the intention of property abduction (the point of insult) (the lower court’s punishment of KRW 1.5 million) is too heavy.

B. Defendant B (misunderstanding of facts or misapprehension of the legal doctrine) ① A victim G filed a complaint against the Defendant as an offense of insult, not an offense of insult, and the offense of insult, which is an offense subject to victim’s complaint, should be dismissed on the ground that there was no legitimate complaint (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 1).

The CD Nos. 3 and 9 and the transcripts derived from the CDs No. 119, which recorded the other human dialogue, are inadmissible as evidence collected in violation of the Communications Secret Protection Act. The remainder of evidence obtained by subtracting such illegally collected evidence is insufficient to acknowledge the fact that Defendant B made the above statement (the second assertion).

Even if the victim did not specify the victim or could not be seen as an insulting speech that could undermine the social evaluation of the victim G, or there was no performance (Article 3).2.

A. In full view of the following circumstances acknowledged by Defendant A’s misunderstanding of facts or misapprehension of the legal doctrine, the lower court’s determination as to Defendant A’s 1’s assertion and the lower court’s duly admitted and investigated by the court of first instance, the specific fact that Defendant A received KRW 10,000 in return for introducing the construction company, beyond questioning in order to verify the facts at the time of the instant crime.

arrow