logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
Text
Reasons
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 수원지방법원 안산지원 2013.04.09 2012고정2238
명예훼손
Text

Defendant shall be punished by a fine of KRW 1,000,000.

If the defendant does not pay the above fine, 50,000 won.

Reasons

Punishment of the crime

The Defendant is a person who leases and uses the victim C’s “Ebustore” underground 8 located in the Nowon-gu Seoul Special Metropolitan City, Nowon-gu, Seoul Special Metropolitan City.

The Defendant, even though there was no fact that the victim was drinking or drinking with a fake boomed, the Defendant, at around 13:40 on May 9, 2012, by openly pointing out false facts such as the victim and the F Company G, the head of the F Company’s legal team, the Defendant’s wife and court, around 418, in front of the Incheon District Court Decision 418, which was located in the Nam-gu Incheon District Court of Law, around May 9, 2012, where many and unspecified people found the Defendant’s wife and court, and “the head of the office refers to a person who is eating or drinking while going to a restaurant in the E-house with employees and fathercheon,” or “the lessee who must pay the face money to pay the rent and pay the money if having gone to the fried, would not be able to do so.”

Summary of Evidence

1. The defendant's partial statement in the second protocol of trial;

1. Each legal statement of the witness C, G, H and I;

1. The suspect interrogation protocol of some police officers against the defendant;

1. Each police statement concerning G;

1. J's certificate;

1. A written confirmation (Evidence of 66 pages);

1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes to each investigation report (Evidence Records, 46 pages, 65 pages);

1. Relevant Article 307 (2) of the Criminal Act concerning facts constituting an offense and Article 307 (2) of the Criminal Act selecting a penalty;

1. Articles 70 and 69 (2) of the Criminal Act for the detention of a workhouse;

1. Judgment on the assertion by the defendant and his/her defense counsel under Article 334(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act

1. The defendant and his defense counsel asserted that "the chief of the complaint does not mean "a person who attends a restaurant with employees and a lessee in the E-S-S-S-S-S-S-S-S-S-S-S-S-S-S-

According to the above evidence, G was examined as to whether the defendant's words were above and the victim was eating in a fake food.

arrow