logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 서울중앙지방법원 2013.09.05 2013노2007
명예훼손
Text

The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

Reasons

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. It is difficult to view that there was a perception of the public performance of the Defendant, because it was merely a passive response to the speech asked by the Defendant in the phone of C, and because it was not entirely anticipated that C would make the conversation available on the Internet.

B. In light of the legal principles, since the Defendant notified the victim of the grounds for disqualification so that the Police Special Promotion Examination in 2011 (hereinafter “instant promotion examination”) would be fair, it can be deemed that it is for the public interest, the illegality is excluded, and on the other hand, it cannot be deemed that the Defendant exceeded the scope of conversation that can be ordinarily divided between the two parties, and the act of a political party that does not violate the social rules is also dismissed.

C. The lower court’s sentence of unreasonable sentencing (200,000 won of fine) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. “Public performance” in the crime of defamation of erroneous facts refers to a state in which many, unspecified or unspecified persons can be recognized. Although spreading facts to one person individually, if there is a possibility of spreading from such fact, the requirement of public performance does not exist if it is possible to spread such facts to many, unspecified or unspecified persons (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2010Do7497, Sept. 8, 2011). If the public performance of defamation crime is acknowledged on the ground of the possibility of dissemination, the public performance of the crime of defamation requires dolusence as a subjective element of the constituent element of the crime, so there is a need for dolus intention at least as to the possibility of dissemination, as well as the intent of deliberation to allow such risk. Whether the actor permitted the possibility of dissemination should be assessed if the general public is based on specific circumstances, such as the form of the act externally expressed and the situation of the act.

arrow