When the defendant does not pay the above fine, 100,000 won.

The defendant is the chairperson of the Korean Democratic Trade Union at the interest rate of the company members working in C, and the victim E is the head of the F personnel strike, and the victim G is a person in charge of online duties from F to online strike members.

On April 19, 2016, the Defendant used the Internet text messages sent to a large number of F employees using the Internet text messages at around 16:10 on April 19, 2016, and “I do not know that it is a professional director with the head of the personnel strike and online sunset, so I will also keep up until the end of the personnel strike dealing with the director of H.

“Along with the purpose of slandering the victims by transmitting text messages containing false information, “” has undermined the honor of victims by disclosing false information via an information and communications network.

Summary of Evidence

1. Partial statement of the defendant;

1. Each legal statement of witness E and G;

1. Application of text messages statutes;

1. Article 70 (2) of the Act on Promotion of Utilization of Information and Communications Network Utilization and Information Protection, etc., of Criminal Facts under the relevant provisions of the Act;

1. Articles 40 and 50 of the Criminal Act of the Commercial Competition;

1. Selection of an alternative fine for punishment;

1. Article 70(1) and Article 69(2) of the Criminal Act to attract a workhouse;

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

1. Although the alleged defendant sent the text message written in the facts constituting a crime (hereinafter “the instant text message”) to F employees, the defendant believed that the content of the instant text message was true and sent to resisting unfair treatment to the Secretary of the D Trade Union, and thus, there was no purpose of slandering the public interest.

2. The following circumstances acknowledged based on each of the aforementioned evidence, namely, ① the Defendant’s employees who are close to approximately 100 persons.