However, the execution of the above punishment shall be suspended for two years from the date this judgment becomes final and conclusive.

피고인은 경기도 평택시 B에 있는 ‘C’를 운영하는 사람으로, 2015. 6. 4. 경기도 오산시 D에 있는 피고인의 집에서 스마트폰을 이용하여 위 태권도장 소속 학생들의 학부모들로 구성된 네이버 밴드 ‘C’에 위 B에 있는 피해자 E 운영의 F병원에 관하여 “B에 있는 G식당 옆 F병원에 메르스 환자 입원해서.. 의사 간호사 모두 검사받고있다네여.. F병원간호사가 친구 와이프입니다 조심 또 조심여ㅠ”라는 글을 게시하였다.

However, in fact, the above hospital did not have been hospitalized by the patient or the doctor or nurse was examined by the Mesium, and there was no fact that the defendant's wife was working as the nurse of the above hospital.

Accordingly, the defendant spreads false facts, thereby obstructing the operation of the hospital of the victim.

Summary of Evidence

1. Defendant's legal statement;

1. Police suspect interrogation protocol of the accused;

1. Application of the police statement law to H

1. Article 314 (1) of the Criminal Act applicable to the crimes;

1. Article 62 (1) of the Criminal Act;

1. Determination on the application of sentencing guidelines for sentencing of Article 62-2 of the Social Service Order Criminal Act: The scope of recommending sentencing guidelines for the reasons of sentencing of Article 62-2: consideration of all circumstances, such as the fact that the risk of spreading false facts through the basic area (6 months to 16 months), the basic area (6 months to 6 months), and the fact that the risk of spreading false facts