logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 수원지방법원 2012.11.08 2012노3505
정보통신망이용촉진및정보보호등에관한법률위반(명예훼손)
Text

The judgment below

The Act on the Promotion of Information and Communications Network Utilization and Information Protection, etc. of Defendant A on March 1, 201.

Reasons

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal: (a) the contents of the article posted by the Defendants do not properly provide the facts and grounds for the victim’s act and evaluation thereof; (b) any member of an apartment building could have read the article posted by the Defendants by joining the Internet car page; (c) the article posted by the Defendants is mainly consisting of a match and a fluort; and (iv) Defendant C prepared a notice as if he was a fact-finding, despite the fact that the Defendants could have acknowledged that he committed the same crime as described in the facts charged in the instant case for the purpose of slandering the victim, the lower court acquitted the Defendants of the facts charged of the instant case.

2. Determination

A. The lower court’s judgment: (a) with respect to the violation of the Act on Promotion of Information and Communications Network Utilization and Information Protection, Etc. against Defendant A and C (hereinafter “defeitation”) (hereinafter “defeitation”), the lower court found the Defendants A and C guilty of this part of the charges on the following grounds: (b) the Defendants’ act was the basis for criticism and evaluation of the quality and activities of the victim F as the president of the council of occupants’ representatives; (c) the degree of defamation suffered by the victim is limited to the other party published by Defendant A and C; (c) the content of the comments posted by Defendant A and C is difficult to be deemed to be a stimulated and explicit expression for the purpose of defamation; (d) free exchange of opinions on the content of this part; and (5) the Defendant merely stated the grounds for suspending activities against the victim; and (e) the publication of this case was merely for the benefit of the public, and there is insufficient evidence to recognize the purpose of defamation.

arrow