logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 서울서부지방법원 2018.06.27 2018고정301
명예훼손
Text

The defendant shall be innocent.

Reasons

1. The summary of the facts charged is that the Defendant, a corporate, “D” (hereinafter “instant Association”), serves as the chief executive officer, and the victim E served as the chief executive officer.

At around December 26, 2016, the Defendant, at the Seoul Mapo-gu Seoul building and the second floor conference room, held a personnel committee as disciplinary action against the victim, thereby impairing the victim’s reputation by openly pointing out false facts to the effect that “The Secretary-General was not in a relationship with G and F, and all employees were aware of all such facts, but are easy to carry out duties as the Secretary-General,” thereby impairing the victim’s reputation by openly pointing out false facts.

2. Determination

A. In the crime of defamation, performance refers to a state in which many, unspecified or unspecified persons can be recognized. Although a person spreads a fact individually, if there is a possibility of spreading it to many, unspecified or unspecified persons, it shall meet the requirements of performance, but if there is no possibility of spreading it differently, the distribution to a specific person shall be deemed to have no performance (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2010Do7497, Sept. 8, 2011). Meanwhile, in a case where performing is acknowledged for the possibility of dissemination on the grounds of the possibility of dissemination, as a subjective element of the elements of crime, there is a need for dolus intention at least as a subjective element of the element of crime, so there is a need for an awareness of the possibility of dissemination, as well as an intent in the deliberation to allow the risk. Whether the actor permitted the possibility of dissemination on the basis of specific circumstances, such as the form of the act and the situation of the act occurring outside, it shall be evaluated how the possibility of dissemination should be confirmed from the perspective of the offender (see Supreme Court Decision 28 October 28, 2010

arrow