logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 서울중앙지방법원 2019.05.01 2019고정125
명예훼손
Text

The defendant is not guilty. The summary of the judgment against the defendant shall be published.

Reasons

The summary of the facts charged is that the defendant is a member of the B apartment house reconstruction and rearrangement project association, and the victim C is a person who was the chairperson of the election management of the above association.

Around April 19, 2018, the Defendant attended a general meeting of the aforementioned association held on the third floor of the Ewebre in Gangnam-gu, Seoul around April 19, 2018, and held a general meeting. The facts are that, despite the fact that the victim did not receive money from another person or want to receive apartment from other members, the victim’s leb "the chairperson, who shall be known to the victim, recognized that he did not have any money, and collected any money," and on April 20, 202:05, the victim “on April 20, 2018, the Chairperson was doubtful by the Chairperson, who was f and f.d., that the Chairperson was f., and f.d., that the Chairperson was f. and f., that he was tight. In order to be asked for such doubt, the Defendant should be f.e., that he did not immediately come and f., that he did not receive any apartment from the victim.”

Accordingly, the defendant has damaged the reputation of the victim by openly pointing out false facts.

The defendant and defense counsel's assertion and judgment

1. The Defendant raised a question at the time and did not indicate the facts.

2. In order to establish the crime of defamation, it is required to make a statement of specific facts sufficient to undermine a person’s social reputation with intent to defame another person as a subjective element (see Supreme Court Decision 2010Do2877, Oct. 28, 2010). In light of the following facts acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and investigated by this court and the following circumstances, the Defendant is deemed to have made the statement identical to the facts charged, but the Defendant raised a question during the process of protesting the victim at the time.

arrow