In order to exact his vengeance on the proprietor of the eyeglasses store where he worked, an employee committed a crime that ultimately led him to the legal system. Through the use of the "Tik Tok" application, he attacked the victim, wrote words that were deemed "offensive," urged people to avoid going to this store, referred to him as a "cheater," and posted the following proverbs: The social networking program is being used by the victim's company, and these statements are being posted on their account.
Following the harm that he endured, the proprietor of the store went to the extent of informing the authorities. The accused was then referred to the Public Prosecution, and then to the court, where he was charged with insulting him through the use of information technology. However, the victim ultimately forgave him and presented evidence of this to the court, which resulted in the case being resolved through reconciliation.
In detail, the lawsuit papers stated, according to what was established in the court’s confidence and reassured its conscience, that while the victim was in one of the commercial centers for shopping, he was surprised by offensive comments on the company’s account on the “Tik Tok” application, so he responded to the defendant on the “WhatsApp” application, and told him That he would report it to the police, then blocked him.
It was indicated by the victim that the accused was an employee working for him in the store, and that his services were terminated as a logical consequence. The victim also mentioned that the statements caused him both material and moral problems.
When the accused was questioned in the arrest report and during the investigations conducted by the Public Prosecution, he denied the accusation that was made against him. However, he later retracted his position before the court, admitted to the accusation that was made against him, and presented a waiver that was notarized by a public notary. This waiver indicated that the victim had renounced the lawsuit and that they had reconciled together.
The court stated in the merits of its decision that it is sufficient to prove the crime of insulting that the criminal intent of the person from whom this crime was committed, including insulting statements, is sufficient. The court also pointed out that according to what is proven in the papers, it is reassured that evidence is proven that the accused intentionally insulted the victim, but in light of the fact that they have reconciled, it sees the case as having reached its conclusion. A sanction.