logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 창원지방법원 2015.01.29 2014노2165
신용훼손등
Text

The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.

Reasons

1. According to the summary of the grounds for appeal, the victim D (hereinafter “victim”) consistently states that “the defendant attached a printed article as described in the facts charged in this case,” and the defendant’s written application of K, a victim’s shot who is the victim’s shot. In this regard, K made an objection to this point, and the female employees at the time stated that “at the time when the management office was made by him/her, he/she only made it possible for him/herself to have made the defendant use,” and there was a rumor that “the defendant made the Defendant use of a printed article as described in the facts charged in this case.” However, the court below acquitted the defendant of the facts charged in this case, so the court below erred by misapprehending the facts and adversely affecting the judgment.

2. Determination

A. The summary of the facts charged in the instant case is C Superior.

At around 15:00 on October 2, 2013, the Defendant entered the 202 shop owned by the victim on the ground that there is a dispute over the management office of Seongbuk-gu, Changwon-si as a matter of the management expenses for commercial buildings, the Defendant: (a) stated the content that “this 202 store is a store which has not paid many management expenses, and is not paying more than electricity; (b) it is not possible to rent this shop; and (c) it is not possible to perform funeral services due to the entry of electricity; (d) in red in red in red in a paper No. A4; and (e) attached the relevant printed object (hereinafter “the instant printed object”) with the entrance door of the victim No. 202; and (e) caused the person to view it by attaching the relevant printed object (hereinafter “the instant printed object”) to the victim, thereby damaging the credit of the victim by fraudulent means that causes misconception of the ability or intent of payment as a lessor, and interfere with the business affairs of the victim.

B. The judgment of the court below is identical to the facts charged in the A4 paper directly using red fences at the time.

arrow