logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 인천지방법원 2015.04.10 2014고정4234
명예훼손
Text

Defendants are not guilty. The summary of the judgment of this case is publicly notified.

Reasons

From April 25, 2014 to June 13, 2014, the Defendants posted a substitute letter stating that “EC is going to go to the seat of its own house,” and that “EC is a member of the residents’ office.” This posted a statement on the message board and the entrance automatic text of the Incheon Seo-gu D apartment, Seo-gu, Incheon. The Defendants posted 152,640 won, “police station entertainment expenses (2 cases), 152,640 won, officers’ meeting expenses, 548,00 won, office miscellaneous expenses (cocks, etc.), 1,680,490 won, office miscellaneous expenses (cocks, etc.), and 688,040 won for attorney’s lawsuit expenses.” All residents posted the substitute letter stating that “I have written the money management expenses, the number of executive officers of which is the money.”

However, there was no fact that the victim E did not say that he would become a house for the occupants, and there was no omission of using the above contents at will, and there was no fact that he had used the apartment management fee on his own.

As a result, the Defendants conspired in collusion to damage the reputation of the victim by openly pointing out false facts.

The summary of the argument and the judgment of the Defendants are true and true, and even if the Defendants were to be false, the Defendants did not have any awareness that they were false since they prepared the instant bulletin on the basis of the content of the books directly prepared by the victim.

Comprehensively taking account of the following circumstances acknowledged by the record as to whether the Defendants made a false statement of facts, it is insufficient to deem that the instant notice was a true fact or a false fact, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it.

① With respect to whether the victim’s statement was made to the residents with two houses, the victim’s investigation agency and this Court held that “The apartment of this case 1001 and 1002 are now leased and live in his house with his own her own dynamics, and that she is an apartment of the two bonds.

arrow