logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 대전지방법원 2017.08.10 2016노2899
정보통신망이용촉진및정보보호등에관한법률위반(명예훼손)등
Text

The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

Reasons

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. misunderstanding of facts and legal principles ① As to the violation of the Act on Promotion of the Use of Information and Communications Network and Information Protection, Etc. (Defamation) among the facts charged in the instant case, the Defendant was aware that the injured party was appointed to the director before the injured party’s wife became the department of department. Therefore, there was no perception that the Defendant was false information.

② Of the facts charged in the instant case, the insulting part of the Defendant’s insultd on September 20, 2014 was not specified in the text posted by the Defendant, and on January 31, 2015, the insult part was not contrary to the social norms, and is not unlawful. Therefore, each offense of insult against the Defendant is not established.

Therefore, the lower court erred by misapprehending the legal doctrine on the crime of violation of the Act on Promotion of the Use of Information and Communications Network and Information Protection, Etc. (Defamation) and the crime of insult, thereby adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment.

B. The sentence of the lower court’s unfair sentencing (an amount of KRW 1.5 million) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. As to the assertion of misunderstanding of facts and legal principles, the lower court determined that the lower court erred by misapprehending the legal doctrine as to (1) the following facts and circumstances revealed by the evidence in its holding: (a) based on the following facts and circumstances revealed, the content that “the victim was a director, who was the victim and the victim was promoted from the J University by the head of the counseling department at the J University; and (b) the Defendant recognized that the content was false.

Since it is reasonable to see that this part of the defendant's argument is groundless.

① F Religious organizations (hereinafter referred to as “F religious organizations”) have J University (hereinafter referred to as “J University”) as affiliated organizations, and the appointment of the directors of J University shall be made by the F Religious Organizations, consisting of the representatives dispatched from the church to which the F Religious Organizations belong.

arrow