logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 수원지방법원 2013.10.31 2012노5802
정보통신망이용촉진및정보보호등에관한법률위반(명예훼손)
Text

The judgment of the court below is reversed.

The defendant shall be innocent.

Reasons

1. The prosecutor actively bears the burden of proving the absence of a fact that has not been embodied in a specified period and space. As such, the person who asserts that he/she is not guilty of the fact that he/she was made public in the crime of defamation of the substance of the grounds for appeal is liable to present a prima facie proof that the existence of such fact is acceptable, and the person who actively asserts that he/she was not aware of the fact that he/she was made public in a certain period and space is liable to make the publication of false facts when the existence of such fact is not presented or when the credibility

(See Supreme Court Decision 9Do5190 delivered on February 26, 2004, etc.). In light of such legal principles, in the instant case where the evidence presented by the Defendant by asserting that the facts indicated in the facts charged are true and not reliable, the Defendant may be recognized as having stated false facts in the facts charged.

In addition, the defendant is also recognized as the purpose of defamation in that he actively expresses false facts beyond the scope of asking for the appropriate problem raising or the necessity of participation.

Nevertheless, the judgment of the court below which acquitted the charged facts of this case is erroneous by misunderstanding the facts and affecting the conclusion of the judgment.

2. Determination:

A. Prior to the judgment on the grounds for appeal ex officio, the prosecutor examined ex officio prior to the judgment on the grounds for appeal of ex officio, and the prosecutor applied for changes to F, N,O, P, Q, Q, R, T, U, V, W, X, and Y “B”, including “F, N, P, P, Q, Q, Q, R, T, U, V, X, and Y” among the facts charged at the trial. As such, the judgment of the court below was no longer maintained.

However, even if there are such reasons for ex officio destruction, the prosecutor's argument of mistake is still subject to the judgment of this court.

arrow