logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 수원지방법원 안산지원 2013.07.02 2013고정619
정보통신망이용촉진및정보보호등에관한법률위반(명예훼손)
Text

A defendant shall be punished by a fine of 500,000 won.

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

Reasons

Punishment of the crime

On October 8, 2012, the Defendant is a person who lives with a photograph author. At the photographer of the Defendant’s operation in Ansan-si, Sinsan-si, on the Internet “E” bulletin board, which is an information and communications network, for the purpose of slandering the victim D, the Defendant posted a statement that “E is aware of the son’s seat” on the Internet “E” bulletin board, which is an information and communications network, for the purpose of slandering the victim D and damaged the reputation of the victim by revealing publicly the fact that the members had already been aware of the son. It is necessary that the Defendant had been aware of the son.

Summary of Evidence

1. Partial statement of the defendant;

1. Statement of D police statement;

1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes to data to capture a sign language;

1. Article 70 (1) of the Act on Promotion of Information and Communications Network Utilization and Information Protection, Etc. concerning facts constituting a crime and Article 70 (1) of the same Act;

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

1. Determination as to the assertion by the defendant and his/her defense counsel under Article 334(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act

1. In order to inform the members of the Association of the reasonableness of the act of the victim demanding litigation costs and to request the victim to write down the judgment on the bulletin board, the summary of the argument was posted.

Therefore, the defendant's act is for the public interest and is not for the purpose of slandering the victim.

2. The facts alleged in the judgment per se are the content that defames the reputation of the victim, the defendant does not seem to have a need to indicate the same content as the facts stated in the judgment in order to achieve or request the same purpose as the above allegations, and at the time of posting the above article.

arrow