If the defendant fails to pay the above fine, one hundred thousand won shall be one day.

피고인은 2018. 5. 15. 09:43경 서울 관악구 B의 주거지에서 게임 커뮤니티 사이트 C에 접속하여 피해자 D(22세)이 작성한 사과문 아래에 댓글로 “사과문 쓰는 법부터 배워야겠구만 요약하면 홧김에 패드립친 것은 반성하지만 저 새끼가 먼저 시비 걸었어요 잖아 ㅋㅋㅋㅋㅋㅋ 입장 바꿔서 니가 저 사과문 받았으면 사과 받아주고 싶겠냐 인성이 안 되면 공부라도 처 더 하던가 머리라도 좋던가 해야 할텐데 하여간 저능아 냄새 존나 나네 이거 올린새끼도 꼬봉새끼면 꼬봉새끼답게 글 좀 읽어보고 상의해서 고칠 건 고치고 올리던가 하긴 저능아 새끼들이 뭘 안다고”라고 피해자를 비하하는 글을 작성ㆍ게시하여 공연히 피해자를 모욕하였다.

Summary of Evidence

1. Partial statement of the defendant;

1. Copy of the statement made to D by the police;

1. A complaint filed in D;

1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes concerning the closure data after submitting a complainant;

1. Article 311 of the Criminal Act and Article 311 of the same Act concerning criminal facts and the choice of fines;

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

1. Article 334(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act of the Provisional Payment Order [Article 334(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act provides that the defendant and his defense counsel merely puts comments on the Internet posts referred to as the victim's ID and thus, the victim's ID alone cannot be deemed to have been specified in the crime of insult, and thus, the crime of insult is not established. If, as Internet comments, even if a certain person's real name is infringed, or a certain person's real name is not expressed, it is possible to find out that the expression is categorized as a specific person in light of the contents of the expression in light of the surrounding circumstances and the surrounding circumstances, it is difficult for the perpetrator to be exempted from liability for defamation or insult of a specific person in principle (see Constitutional Court Decision 2007Hun-Ma461, Jun. 26, 2008).