The facts of a legal case
Li, the private prosecutor, is a staff member of Lingbi County Education and Sports Bureau. 20 1 1 At the beginning of the year, the defendants Hu, Zhang, Ji, Zhao and Li reached an agreement to invest in boarding Lingbi School (hereinafter referred to as the school) through consultation, and Li signed the agreement in the name of his brother Li. During Li's running the school, he had conflicts with the defendants Hu, Zhang, Zhao and Ji. From 20 14127 October to the same year127 October, the defendant Zhang and others used the school computer to register their user names in Lingbi Forum. Lingbi chivalrous? The real names Hu Mou, Zhang Mou, Zhao Mou and Ji Mou published articles such as "Report: An official of Lingbi Education and Sports Bureau was forced to take a stake in a private school", "Can Lingbi education system officials take a stake in the enterprises they supervise and manage" and "Review of Li Incident", which were clicked on websites such as Suzhou Online and Online World.
Li believes that the four defendants fabricated facts and spread them maliciously on the Internet, which seriously damaged the reputation and personality of the private prosecutor. His behavior has constituted a crime of libel, and he requested that the criminal responsibility of the four defendants be investigated according to law, and he was ordered to compensate the private prosecutor for his mental loss of 50,000 yuan, delete online libel information, publicly apologize and restore his reputation.
court trial
The court of first instance held that the actions of the defendants Hu, Zhang, Zhao and Ji did not meet the constitutive requirements of the crime of libel, and ruled that the defendants Hu, Zhang, Zhao and Ji were not guilty and rejected Li's claim. Li refused to accept the appeal.
The second trial of the court held that Li negotiated with the fourth defendant in the original trial in the name of his brother Li Moumou. Although Li signed the name of Li Moumou on the investment agreement, Li actually participated in the school management and collected the investment funds paid by other partners, and signed his name on the school's catering, accommodation and other expenses. Fourth, the defendant in the original trial reported Li's problem to the Commission for Discipline Inspection and the education authorities under his real name after he had a conflict with Li during his schooling, and published a real-name article on the Internet, maliciously slandering Li's personality and reputation, and did not use fictional words or words improperly. The judgment of first instance found the facts clear, the applicable law was correct, and the trial procedure was legal. Accordingly, the court ruled in the second instance that the appeal was dismissed and the original judgment was upheld.
The judge's statement
The judge in charge of the second trial of the case said that according to the law, the crime of libel refers to the deliberate fabrication and dissemination of some fictional facts, which is enough to damage the personality and reputation of others and the circumstances are serious. Whether it constitutes libel depends on whether it deliberately fabricates or fabricates facts. In this case, after the fourth defendant in the original trial had a conflict with Li in the school operation process, he reported Li's problems to the Commission for Discipline Inspection and the education authorities in real name, and published real-name articles on the Internet, without fictional words or improper use of words to maliciously slander Li's personality and reputation. Therefore, the defendant's behavior in the first instance does not meet the constitutive requirements of libel.