(영문) 수원지방법원 2017.06.02 2016노8574 | 리걸엔진

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) 수원지방법원 2017.06.02 2016노8574

명예훼손

Text

The judgment of the court below is reversed.

Defendant shall be punished by a fine of KRW 400,000.

The above fine shall not be paid by the defendant.

Reasons

1. In the instant facts charged, the lower court found the Defendant not guilty on the part of defamation caused by the description of inducement materials, and rendered a judgment of conviction on the part of defamation caused by the description of the remainder of inducement materials, and the prosecutor only appealed on the part of the Defendant and did not appeal the part of the acquittal. As such, according to the indivisible principle of appeal, the part of the acquittal was handed down at the trial along with the verdict of conviction, but the part of the acquittal was already out of the object of the attack and defense between the parties (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2009Do12934, Jan. 14, 2010). Accordingly, the lower court determined the part of the conviction in accordance with the conclusion of the lower judgment as to the part of the judgment, and did not render a judgment on the part of the conviction only on the grounds of the lower judgment’s conclusion (it does not change the part of the judgment below’s conviction as to the part of the conviction which is based on the conclusion of the lower judgment).

A. That the victim did not notify his/her representative of the payment of the subsidy;

Since the victim did not notify the representative of C apartment building of the fact that he would be able to receive color construction expenses from the king City in 2016, the defendant stated that "the representative of the tenant of the apartment building (the victim) would provide money exceeding KRW 40 million in the city of the city for the repair and painting work of the apartment building outer wall of the apartment house, but the defendant did not notify the representative of the fact and tried to select the external company and place the order without notifying the representative of the fact."

Nevertheless, the judgment of the court below which found this part of the facts charged guilty is erroneous by misunderstanding the facts and affecting the judgment.

B. The victim shall unfix the construction cost with the color of the tenant.

참조판례

-대법원 2010. 1. 14. 선고 2009도12934 판결

유사 판례

-수원지방법원 안양지원 2016.11.18 2016고정312

-수원지방법원 안산지원 2017.12.13 2017고정456

-울산지방법원 2014.04.18 2014고정101

-수원지방법원 2018.05.03 2017고정2859

-수원지방법원 평택지원 2014.04.03 2013고정267