logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 서울중앙지방법원 2017.08.18 2017노707
모욕
Text

The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.

Reasons

1. At the time of the instant case, the summary of the grounds for appeal (misunderstanding of facts and misapprehension of the legal doctrine) was connected to the company’s public cell phone account other than the Defendant and the complainant, and the employees of the company’s public cell phone account were accessible to anyone.

Therefore, the posting of insulting contents on a group Kakao Stockholm Room room could be disseminated to an unspecified or majority, and the Defendant, who is aware of such circumstances, had an intention to recognize and accept it.

may be seen.

However, the judgment of the court below which acquitted the defendant is erroneous in the misapprehension of facts or legal principles.

2. The lower court determined that the Defendant posted the same article as described in the facts charged to the complainants after D and E in the Kakakao Stockholm room, and, in light of the content of the text posted on the above account, the Defendant appears to have been aware that the complainants had used the above company’s official mobile phone account outside the Kakao Stockholm account at the time of the filing of the complaint in light of the following: (a) the Defendant posted the same article to the complainants after D and E; (b) the Defendant left the company’s official mobile phone account other than the Defendant and the complainants; and (c) the Defendant appears to have

It judged that it cannot be readily concluded and sentenced the defendant not guilty.

In light of the following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence, the judgment of the court below is just and acceptable, and there is an error of law by misunderstanding the facts or by misunderstanding the legal principles as alleged by the prosecutor, as otherwise alleged by the prosecutor.

shall not be deemed to exist.

In addition, there is no other new evidence in the appellate court to support the fact that the additional prosecutor asserts in the grounds for appeal.

Therefore, prosecutor's assertion.

arrow