logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 인천지방법원 부천지원 2015.04.14 2014고정511
정보통신망이용촉진및정보보호등에관한법률위반(명예훼손)등
Text

The defendant shall publicly announce the summary of the judgment against the defendant not guilty.

Reasons

1. On March 10, 2013, the Defendant: (a) visited the “C” following the Internet site using a computer at an influence place; (b) visited the said car page’s free bulletin board; and (c) “In case of an apartment building, the number of members of the Dong page and the auditor’s thickness are recognized by themselves and rewarding them in half of the yellow amount; and (d) as of March 11, 2013, the Defendant published a letter of “I” on the above car page’s free bulletin board, “The more important thing is that you have posted “I cannot get off the suspicion that I would go against I would go against I would go against I would go against” on the ground of the fact that I would like to conceal the corruption of the former representative director’s Do.”

However, in fact, although the victim E and auditor F, the former president of the Dong-gu D Apartment in Bupyeong-gu, Seoul Special Metropolitan City, where the defendant is residing, was awarded a 500 million amount of the compensation for that contribution through the normal resolution procedure of the council of representatives, the defendant published a false statement to the effect that the victim voluntarily recognized his/her contribution as well as his/her public funds, and therefore, he/she has an ability to have the yellow fever.

As a result, the Defendant damaged the honor of the victim E by openly pointing out false facts through information and communication networks with the aim of slandering others.

The defendant of "2014 high-level 1225" is the representative of the D Apartment Building Operation Committee and the 7th 1002 representative. The victim G is the representative of the above apartment building, and the victim H is the 1005, 1005, 1006, 1009, 1009, and 1010 Dong units, respectively.

1. On March 10, 2013, the Defendant referred to the victims as “A” on the Internet following the carpet bulletin board as “C” and referred to as “a divar of the same representative,” by using Adidi “L” at the free bulletin board.

arrow