logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 서울서부지방법원 2013.04.25 2013노47
정보통신망이용촉진및정보보호등에관한법률위반(명예훼손)등
Text

The judgment below

The guilty portion shall be reversed.

The sentence of sentence against the defendant shall be suspended.

Reasons

The summary of the grounds for appeal (the mistake or misunderstanding of legal principles) that the defendant sent to the victim does not have any specific notice of harm and injury, and thus, the victim cannot be deemed to have been frighted, and there is a notice of family harm and harm.

Even if the crime of intimidation was not established in light of social customs and ethical concept, the court below erred by misapprehending the facts or by misapprehending the legal principles, which affected the conclusion of the judgment, although it did not constitute a crime of intimidation.

Judgment

Intimidation in a crime of intimidation refers to a threat of harm to such an extent that is generally likely to cause fear by a person. As such, an intentional act as a subjective constituent element does not require the intent or desire to actually realize the harm and danger that an actor knows to the extent that it is likely to cause such a threat, and there is a threat of harm and injury.

Even if the crime of intimidation is not established if it is to the extent acceptable by social norms in light of the custom and ethical concept of society, etc., however, whether there was an intentional act of intimidation or intimidation in such meaning should be determined by considering not only the external appearance of the act, but also the circumstances leading to such act, and the relationship with the victim.

(See Supreme Court Decision 2005Do329 Decided March 25, 2005, etc.), comprehensively taking account of the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court below, the defendant, upon the victim's recommendation, participated in the world carcing conference held in Australia and paid expenses incurred by the victim due to the lack of appraisal, and the victim did not return the expenses requested by the defendant to the victim through the Internet carcing account when the victim was under contact with the victim due to the lack of appraisal.

arrow