logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 수원지방법원 안산지원 2014.06.25 2014고단308
모욕
Text

Defendant

A shall be punished by a fine of KRW 1,000,000.

Defendant

If A does not pay the above fine, 100,000 won.

Reasons

Punishment of the crime

Defendant

A is a person who uses an undisclosed D in the Internet community site C.

Defendant

A은 2013. 10. 10.경부터 10. 15.까지 위 사이트의 갤러리에 게시된 피해자 E(24세)의 글을 보고 아무런 이유 없이 ‘관절 애미 전라도 섬노예 새우잡는 남자한테 대주다가 새우젓낳음’, ‘관절 저새끼 더럽다 신체밸런스 좆도 안맞을 듯 몸은 큰데 고추는 좆만함’, ‘관절 신심 장애인같다’, ‘관절애미 창녀 새끼’ 등의 제목으로 댓글을 올려 총 6회에 걸쳐 공연히 피해자를 모욕하였다.

Summary of Evidence

1. Defendant A’s legal statement

1. Statement to E by the police;

1. Application of the Acts and subordinate statutes to photographs, results of access IP search by verifying the address of URL and capturing a notice;

1. Relevant Articles of the Criminal Act concerning facts constituting an offense. Article 311 (Selection of Punishment of Fines)

1. The former part of Article 37 of the Criminal Act, Articles 38 (1) 2 and 50 of the same Act to increase concurrent crimes;

1. Articles 70 and 69 (2) of the Criminal Act to attract a workhouse;

1. The dismissal part of the prosecution under Article 334 (1) of the Criminal Procedure Act

1. The summary of the facts charged is as follows: (a) Defendant B, a person using a clinic F at the Internet community website C; and (b) around October 11, 2013, on the part of the victim E posted on the gallon of the above site, Defendant B puts a notice on the title “Is the fluor,” without any reason, stating that “Is the fluor’s fluort is equal to the fluor’s fluor’s fluor’s fluor’s fluor’s fluor’s fluor’s fluor’s fluor’s fluor’s bit

2. The facts charged against the above defendant is a crime falling under Article 311 of the Criminal Act, which can be prosecuted only upon a victim's complaint pursuant to Article 312 (1) of the Criminal Act. According to the records, the facts that the victim revoked the complaint against the above defendant on February 6, 2014, which is after the prosecution of this case. Thus, the prosecution against the above defendant is dismissed pursuant to Article 327 (5) of the Criminal Procedure Act.

arrow