beta
Text
1. The part against the defendant in the judgment of the court of first instance shall be revoked.
2. The plaintiff's claim corresponding to the above revocation part.
Reasons
1. Basic facts
A. From April 2005 to the beginning of 2011, the Plaintiff worked as an employee of the D Association representative of C, who is the Plaintiff’s child, and was in charge of care for animals at the animal care center in the Association Nam-ju, and the Defendant served as the head of the D Association Seoul Branch from April 2010 to December 30, 2010.
B. At around 2006, the Plaintiff collected the dead body of a motor vehicle on the road and stored it in the freezing of the dog farm located adjacent to the D Association’s Spocheon-si Protection Office.
C. On June 5, 2011, around 18:37, the Defendant posted the following language (hereinafter “instant text”) as the title “F” on the Internet site (E).
여러분은 어떻게 생각하십니까 (중략) 이 글을 쓰고 있는 지금 저의 가슴이 찢어질 듯이 아픕니다.
The author was the head of the detention camp with his shocked friend.
A few years ago, the father of the representative of the organization collected the rodiced, and put it into the freezing of the protective center for eating.
I discovered that the case was discovered.
The testimony was the employee of the consignment center at the time of the operation of the organization, and the representative of the organization directly viewed that he had the body in the freezing area of the farm.
The father of the representative of an organization was in friendly with the principal of the protected center, but this is breabbling.
In order to confirm its contents, the former head of the detention camp called the main farm owner by the protective station, and thereafter, the owner of the opening farm called the Association at all times, but the habbbbbba.
The problem was known among several directors.
(B)
D. The Defendant was convicted of a fine of KRW 3 million on January 29, 2015, on the ground that the Defendant, in the Suwon District Court case No. 2013 Man-Ma348, prepared and posted the instant text for the purpose of slandering the Plaintiff through an information and communications network and disclosed openly false information, thereby impairing the Plaintiff’s reputation.
(e).