logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 수원지방법원 2016.04.14 2015노4311
모욕등
Text

The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

Reasons

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. 1) The victim was identified solely on the Internet name, etc. used by the victim F, in the writing posted by the Defendant as to the insult of facts

shall not be deemed to exist.

Therefore, the judgment of the court below convicting this part of the facts charged is erroneous.

2) On the issue of intimidation, the article posted by the defendant is merely an expression of the victim's decentralization.

In addition, if one victim does not visit the defendant's online personal block as requested by the defendant, it is difficult to see the defendant's bulletin, and the defendant's writing was written, and the victim's online site, which is the controlled entity, deleted the above writing by force. Thus, it is impossible to recognize the performance, and eventually, the defendant's notice of harm and injury to the victim was given.

subsection (b) of this section.

Therefore, the judgment of the court below convicting this part of the facts charged is erroneous.

B. The punishment sentenced by the court below (the penalty amount of KRW 3.7 million) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. As to the assertion of misunderstanding of facts, the protection of the legal interest of insult is the so-called external reputation, which is a social evaluation of the value of a person, and the person who is the subject of reputation does not necessarily have to express his/her name even if he/she is required to be a specific person. Thus, in cases where an expressive act without a person’s name is possible to identify which person is given a specific person by judging the contents of the expression in light of the surrounding circumstances, it constitutes a crime of insult against the specific person (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2000Da68306, May 10, 2002). However, in light of the victim’s Internet ID only if it is possible to know only the victim’s Internet ID, and in full view of other surrounding circumstances, a person with an Internet ID is identified.

arrow