(영문) 대전지방법원 2017.02.08 2016노1050 | 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) 대전지방법원 2017.02.08 2016노1050

정보통신망이용촉진및정보보호등에관한법률위반(명예훼손)

Text

The judgment of the court below is reversed.

Defendant shall be punished by a fine of one million won.

The above fine shall not be paid by the defendant.

Reasons

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. misunderstanding of facts and misunderstanding of legal principles 1) The "investigation Report (Consumer Protection Board Call)" presented as evidence by the court below is a evidence stating the hearsay statement, and the defendant did not consent to it as evidence, and thus, it is not admissible as evidence.

However, the lower court recognized the instant facts charged as evidence. In so doing, the lower court erred by misapprehending the legal doctrine.

2) The Defendant did not post the same article as the facts charged for the purpose of slandering the victim by posting the content of the dispute experienced between the victim and the victim on a Blog, etc.

Even so, the court below held that there was a purpose to defame the defendant.

As such, the lower court erred by misapprehending the facts and misapprehending the legal doctrine.

3) It is not false to the effect that the Defendant was not informed of the order number among the letters posted without being informed of the text message or e-mail from the injured party.

In addition, since the defendant stated that the injured party's statement of the answer to the bulletin board run away, it cannot be said that the content of the above article cannot be said to be the purport that the victim unilaterally avoided the contact of the defendant, and it cannot be said to be false.

However, the lower court recognized this part as a false fact. In so doing, the lower court erred by misapprehending the legal doctrine.

4) As stated in the lower judgment, since the Defendant’s writing on the Internet homepage was set up and written as a non-disclosure as stated in Articles 3 and 4 of the facts constituting a crime in the lower judgment, there was no criminal intent as to the public performance that the Defendant may spread the above

Even so, the lower court found the Defendant guilty solely on the fact that the victim could output it, and so, the lower court erred by misapprehending the facts and misapprehending the legal doctrine.

B. The sentence of the lower court’s improper sentencing (2 million won) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination:

유사 판례

-대전지방법원 2017.01.11 2016노2133

-대전지방법원 2016.08.31 2016노679

-대전지방법원 2016.05.13 2016노686

-대전지방법원 2016.06.15 2015노2480

-대전지방법원 2017.02.15 2016노3122