logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 수원지방법원 2019.04.26 2019노301
명예훼손
Text

The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

Reasons

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Since a mistake of facts and misapprehension of legal principles were made in the course of responding to questions, the Defendant did not have an intention of defamation, and there is no possibility of dissemination.

B. The sentence imposed by the lower court on the grounds of unreasonable sentencing (three million won of fine) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. The Defendant has the same assertion as the Defendant alleged in the lower court on the erroneous determination of facts and misapprehension of legal doctrine.

The court below rejected the assertion on the argument following the summary of the evidence.

The following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court below and the court below's judgment, namely, ① the photographs submitted by the defendant were the victim and E at the time of the instant case.

It is difficult to view that E had induced a victim to defame the victim from the Defendant upon the victim’s instruction. ② The Defendant asserted that the content of the statement made to E is identical with that of another person and is also identical to that of the victim already submitted to the full bench in other criminal cases, and thus does not constitute a separate crime of defamation. However, it is difficult to view that the content of the statement made to E unrelated to the above trial is a fact of public announcement, and it is difficult to see that the content thereof is a fact of public announcement, and if it is likely to impair another person’s reputation even if the statement of public announcement is likely to harm the victim’s reputation, the crime of defamation is established (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2004Do6754, Nov. 25, 2004). ③ The Defendant asserted that E was guilty on the basis of this, although it was not admissible, the lower court did not adopt the above statement as evidence, but the intention and public performance of defamation is recognized.

arrow