logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 수원지방법원 2015.11.06 2015노3628
명예훼손
Text

The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

Reasons

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Error of facts and misapprehension of legal principles constitute a true fact, not a false fact, but a true fact, and spreading the above contents for the public interest. Thus, it constitutes a ground for excluding illegality under Article 310 of the Criminal Act.

B. The sentence imposed by the court below on the defendant (one year and six months of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. As to the assertion of mistake of facts and misapprehension of the legal doctrine, the Defendant indicated in the letter, such as the statement in the list of crimes attached to the lower judgment, namely, ① the acquisition of a master’s and doctor’s degree at C’s college, is false; from 2006 to 2007, the Defendant was a false career as a research visiting professor at a private university in the U.S. Libynian University.

② The G’s career of visiting research professors at a non-permanent university in the United States of Japan is false;

③ In light of the evidence duly adopted and investigated by the lower court and the following circumstances, the Defendant’s alleged facts are clearly false. The Defendant’s alleged facts are clearly false. The Defendant’s alleged facts are acknowledged.

Therefore, the defendant's assertion that the above statement is true is without merit.

In the case of Suwon District Court Decision 2014No4154, 3574 (Consolidated), the Defendant was convicted on February 5, 2015 and sentenced to one year and six months of imprisonment for the crime (excluding the part concerning the crime of false accusation) that talks about the same false facts as the above, or sent e-mail containing such false facts as the above (i) through (iii). The Defendant appealed on February 5, 2015. However, on May 29, 2015, the said judgment became final and conclusive as it was upon dismissal by the Supreme Court.

The defendant in the first and second trials of the above case is the same as the case in this case.

arrow