logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
Text
Reasons
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 서울동부지방법원 2016.10.11 2016고정154
명예훼손
Text

Defendant shall be punished by a fine of KRW 700,000.

Where the defendant fails to pay the above fine, one hundred thousand won shall be one day.

Reasons

Punishment of the crime

Part of the facts charged shall be revised and supplemented without going through amendments to indictment to the extent that it seems that there is no concern about substantial disadvantage to the defendant's defense right.

Defendant

A is the PC-based owner.

1. On July 12, 2015, the Defendant damaged the reputation of the complainant by openly pointing out false information that “The head of the F division of the G Association Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha, who was in Gangnam-gu Seoul, did not request the Defendant to take advantage of the fact in the D Ste Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha, which was located in Gangnam-gu Seoul.”

2. On July 2015, the Defendant, at the first office, destroyed the reputation of the complainant by publicly pointing out false facts, such as “The Director of the D Company F was bound to make a withdrawal from the D Company, and the work as I Company J,” to the multiple heads of the PPCs, although the complainant was not bound to do so by the F Company F to do so.”

3. Around August 1, 2015, the Defendant damaged the reputation of the complainant by publicly pointing out false facts that “the director of the DF division of the DF demanded rebates to B,” among three business-related persons in the surrounding areas, the Defendant, despite the absence of the Defendant’s demand for rebates on L located in Songpa-gu Seoul, Songpa-gu, Seoul.

Summary of Evidence

1. Partial statement of the defendant;

1. Legal statement of F;

1. Partial statement of theO;

1. The Defendant’s written statement of F, P, and Q, and each police statement of F, P, and Q demanded the O to make the rebates, and the F demanded that it be an “O” to indicate the truth not false but true, as well as the fact that the rebates was made in order to find out whether it was a business practice, and that there was no intention to impair the F’s reputation.

However, even if the defendant's own assertion is based on the defendant's own argument, he himself from F.

arrow