(영문) 서울서부지방법원 2012.11.01 2012노917

beta

본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.

Text

Reasons

텍스트 조절

글꼴

크기(pt)

굵기

줄 간격

자간(%)

(영문) 서울서부지방법원 2012.11.01 2012노917

명예훼손등

Text

The judgment of the court below is reversed.

Defendant shall be punished by a fine of KRW 1,500,000.

The above fine shall not be paid by the defendant.

Reasons

1. Although the summary of the grounds for appeal (in fact-finding or misapprehension of legal principles, unreasonable sentencing) the Defendant conducted one-person demonstration, the crime of defamation is not established to inform the Defendant of his detention.

There is no fact that the defendant interfered with the business of the D Hospital, and there is no fact that he interfered with it.

The punishment (fine 2.5 million won) sentenced by the court below is too unreasonable.

2. Determination:

A. Examining the issue of defamation as to the assertion of mistake of facts, it is reasonable to view that the Defendant’s act constitutes defamation as a crime of defamation, as it is a specific fact that includes false facts in the content of the diskettes at the time of one person’s demonstration, and that the content thereof is sufficient to infringe the victim’s social value or evaluation.

Therefore, the judgment of the court below that found the defendant guilty on this part of the charges is just and there is no error of mistake of facts as alleged by the defendant.

According to C and F’s legal statement, C and F’s written statement, written complaint, written complaint of C and written investigation report, each investigation report, etc. on September 29, 201, the Defendant: (a) on September 29, 201, sought a counseling office E working at D and demanded a large amount of 5 minutes to the waiting room; (b) on September 24, 2009, the Defendant demanded a compensation as a complaint against medical treatment; (c) on the other hand, he/she received 7 million won from the side of D and would avoid disturbance, and even thereafter, the Defendant did not conduct a demonstration on one person, and continued to conduct a demonstration at D and one person; and (d) on the other, the Defendant’s act of demanding consultation and consultation to the head of E and consultation office, etc., thereby constituting a crime of interference with business.

Therefore, this part is to the same purport.

유사 판례

-서울서부지방법원 2012.08.07 2012고정397

-의정부지방법원 2019.01.24 2018고정1023

-서울남부지방법원 2012.12.17 2012고정2517

-수원지방법원 안산지원 2013.06.12 2013고정466

-울산지방법원 2012.10.10 2012고정313