logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 부산지방법원 2017.07.05 2016고정2103
명예훼손
Text

A fine of three million won shall be imposed on a defendant.

Where the defendant fails to pay the above fine, one million won shall be the one day.

Reasons

Punishment of the crime

The defendant is a person who operates an insurance designer and parking lot in the vicinity of the Busan Jin-gu C market, and the victim D is a person who operates an camping and collection shop in the above C market.

In 2014, the Defendant represented the C market residents in the process of receiving damages from dust and noise caused by the primary construction of the E apartment in the vicinity of the C market, and the victim D represented the C market residents in the process of receiving damages from dust and noise caused by the secondary construction of the E apartment in 2015.

On July 4, 2015, at around 16:00, the Defendant: (a) paid the compensation for damage to the victim D in cash to residents according to the distance from the construction site of the above E apartment building site to residents; (b) there was no embezzlement of the compensation; and (c) even though there was no fact that there was a sexual relationship with the victim G, who is an employee of the store operated by the victim D, or that there was no money for having a sexual relationship with the victim D; (d) on the grounds that the compensation for damage was not divided equally, the Defendant paid the compensation for damage to the victim D, among several people, on the grounds that the compensation for damage was not divided equally.

하면서 “ 네 가 안고 뒹굴고 자는 놈은 돈을 주고, 왜 다른 사람들은 쌀을 주냐.

The term “patently spreads false facts,” thereby impairing the honor of victims.

Summary of Evidence

1. The statements of witnesses D, H and I in the second trial protocol made by this Court;

1. The defendant asserts that the defendant did not state the above false facts at the time and place stated in the crime.

There is no fluoration of facts.

However, in light of the evidence duly adopted and examined by this court, the defendant's assertion is not accepted, since D, H, and I made a concrete and consistent statement that corresponds to the facts constituting an offense from the police to the court.

The laws and regulations;

arrow