logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 서울중앙지방법원 2020.09.01 2018노3458
정보통신망이용촉진및정보보호등에관한법률위반(명예훼손)
Text

All appeals filed by the Defendants and the Prosecutor are dismissed.

Reasons

1. The court below found Defendant B not guilty on the grounds of violation of the Act on Promotion, etc. of Information and Communications Network Utilization and Information Protection, etc. (Defamation) due to defamation of false facts, which are the primary facts charged in the instant case, and found Defendant B guilty of the violation of the Act on Promotion, etc. of Information and Communications Network Utilization and Information Protection, etc. (Defamation) due to defamation due to factual facts, which are the conjunctive facts charged. Defendant B filed an appeal only against the aforementioned guilty

Therefore, although the part on acquittal of the reasoning of the judgment below is judged in the appellate court, the part on which the judgment below is not guilty shall be judged differently from the object of attack and defense between the parties (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2004Do5014, Oct. 28, 2004). Thus, the part on innocence of the above reason shall be determined by the conclusion of the judgment of the court below and the court shall not be decided separately.

2. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. The Defendants (definites and misunderstanding of legal principles) victim D (hereinafter “victims”) are officially recognized and led by their voluntary and leading participation in the public debate. The Defendants posted letters or cartoons (hereinafter “the instant text”) on the private and death process of the victim’s father, who was a public concern, and the Defendants posted a letter or cartoon (hereinafter “the instant cartoon”) on the victim’s father, who was the father of the victim’s public interest. The Defendants’ timely statement is related to the public interest, and thus, the purpose of slandering the Defendants is not acknowledged.

Nevertheless, the judgment of the court below which found the Defendants guilty of violating the Act on Promotion of Information and Communications Network Utilization and Information Protection, etc. (Defamation) due to the factual defamation, is erroneous and erroneous.

B. The details of the instant crime committed by the prosecutor (unfair form).

arrow