logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 서울중앙지방법원 2017.03.31 2016노4698
명예훼손
Text

The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

Reasons

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. 1) The contents written on the printed matter posted or distributed by the Defendant (hereinafter “the instant printed matter”) do not impair the honor of the victim.

2) The Defendant’s act of posting or distributing the instant printed matter in which the Defendant stated true facts for the public interest is dismissed pursuant to Article 310 of the Criminal Act.

3) The Defendant attempted to put the instant printed matter into the apartment mail, but during the input, the security guards prevented the Defendant and collected the printed matter.

Therefore, defamation crime does not reach the number of times, and defamation damage crime is not punishable, so the defendant should be acquitted.

B. Sentencing is unfair because the sentence (one million won penalty) imposed by the lower court is too unreasonable for the criminal defendant to be sentenced.

2. Determination

A. 1) The instant printed matter claiming that the instant printed matter was not prejudicial to the honor of the victim is the fact-finding fact-finding that there was suspicion that the victim, who had been the chairman of the apartment lessee’s representative council, concluded a set construction contract by unlawful means, and embezzled public funds, etc., which is obviously the content that impairs the honor of the victim.

Therefore, we cannot accept the defendant's above assertion.

2) The following circumstances acknowledged by the lower court’s duly admitted and investigated evidence that the illegality is excluded, namely, ① the victim entered into a set of construction contract with an enterprise which presented the most favorable condition after obtaining an estimate from multiple set companies, and there was a violation of any procedure or provision in the process.

The estimate of other companies alleged by the defendant, based on the fact that he could conclude a set construction contract under more favorable terms, is different from each other, and thus, it will be subject to comparison at the beginning.

arrow