logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 대구지방법원 2016.08.18 2015노4309
모욕
Text

The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

Reasons

1. Summary of grounds for appeal (misunderstanding of facts and improper sentencing);

A. The Defendant, as the personnel team leader of the personnel team, was sent each text message while performing his legitimate duties, and was not perceived as impeding the social evaluation of the victims at the time. As such, the Defendant had the intent to insult the victim.

subsection (b) of this section.

Nevertheless, since the court below recognized the establishment of each offense of insult and sentenced the defendant guilty, the court below erred by misunderstanding the facts.

B. The sentence of the lower court that is unfair in sentencing (one million won in penalty) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. As to the assertion of misunderstanding of facts, the Defendant is the head of the personnel support team of the E Co., Ltd. in the instant facts charged.

The victim F is an employee dismissed from the above company on July 26, 2010, and the members of the Korean Metal Trade Union and its branch E branch are under proceedings with the company for reinstatement until now.

A) On April 30, 2015, the Defendant sent a mobile phone text message to approximately 500 employees via the Internet at the above company around April 30, 2015.

그 문자 내용에는 ‘ 주 동자 믿고 따라온 당신들의 팬클럽 회원인 일반해고 자’, ‘ 몇 푼 안 되는 돈 침 찔찔 흘리지 마라’ 라면 서 피해자를 비롯한 전국 금속노동조합 경주 지부 E 지회 소속 조합원들을 공연히 모욕하였다.

B) On May 12, 2015, the Defendant sent a mobile phone text message to approximately 500 employees via the Internet at around 12:25, May 12, 2015.

The text expresses the members of the Korean Metal Trade Union E branch of the Korean Metal Trade Union, including the victim, as a "defluence" and publicly insulting the contents of the text.

2) The lower court found the Defendant guilty of the instant facts charged on the basis of each of the evidence indicated in its holding.

3) We examine the judgment of the party, which is legitimate in the original trial and the trial of the party.

arrow