logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 청주지방법원 2018.12.20 2018노854
정보통신망이용촉진및정보보호등에관한법률위반(명예훼손)
Text

The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.

Reasons

1. According to the summary of the grounds for appeal (misunderstanding of facts), among the articles written in the facts charged of this case (hereinafter “the notice of this case”) posted by the Defendant on the information and communications network, the part of “the president’s order to produce wastewater in Ah and release it to the U.S. Won” constitutes a false statement that “the Defendant instructed F to discharge wastewater to the said employees,” and the head of N N N N Nn Labor Site, the Defendant, the head of Nn Labor Site, had experienced conflicts with labor-management.

The notice of this case was posted for the purpose of pressure F, and was for the Defendant’s purpose of slandering F.

Although it is reasonable to see that the court below acquitted the charged facts of this case on a different premise, it erred by misapprehending the facts and affecting the conclusion of the judgment.

2. Determination

A. In light of the circumstances described in the notice of this case, the court below held that the Defendant’s expression of the facts in the notice of this case was “F operator discharged wastewater without permission” and it cannot be readily concluded that the above facts were false, and that the principal motive or purpose of the notice of this case was for the sake of public interest, such as environmental protection. Thus, the Defendant’s expression of this case’s expression was aimed at slandering F.

Considering that it cannot be seen, the charges of this case were acquitted.

B. As alleged by the prosecutor, the instant notice also constitutes a statement of the fact that “the F had ordered this employee to discharge wastewater” (Provided, That the facts charged in the instant case pointed out that the content of the instant notice does not specifically specify what constitutes the false facts). According to the evidence duly adopted and examined by the lower court, the lower court’s witness I would have to use the sewage f from around 2012 to around 2013.

arrow