logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 서울북부지방법원 2017.04.28 2016노1173
명예훼손
Text

The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.

Reasons

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. As to defamation portion, the amount of the part mentioned in the victim's unpaid management expenses or the act of returning a unique number of commercial buildings in the printed materials distributed by the defendants is not certain.

In light of the amount of harm and the contents of the discussion, this does not simply refer to the defendant's response to the victim's request for explanation, but also includes the defendant's intentional act of defamation.

Nevertheless, the lower court erred by misapprehending the Defendants’ intention of defamation, and instead acquitted the Defendants on this part of the facts charged.

B. As to the insulting part, although the Defendants’ distribution of the printed matter took the form of responding to the victim’s request for explanation, it is against the social norms that the victim is not entitled to become the head of the management office regardless of the matters requiring explanation.

Nevertheless, the lower court erred by misapprehending the facts or by misapprehending the legal doctrine, thereby adversely affecting the social norms.

As a result, the Defendants were acquitted of this part of the facts charged.

2. Determination

A. Comprehensively taking account of the evidence duly admitted after examining the evidence as to the part of defamation, the Defendants’ act of not returning the unpaid management fee or commercial identification number of the victim mentioned in the printed matter distributed by the Defendants is only incidental to the entire contents.

Although there is no problem after the defendants entrusted the operation of the shopping mall, the remaining problem is related to the whole answer because the victim is in the position of the president of the shopping mall or was incurred in the process of transfer.

In addition, the reason for the resignation of the victim's prosperity president, the reason why the dispute between the Defendants and the victims has continued over the operation of the prosperity, and the details of the relevant final decision.

arrow