If the defendant does not pay the above fine, 50,000 won.

The Defendant is a social worker.

On October 2012, the Defendant damaged the honor of the complainant by openly pointing out false facts, such as “E is not a resident, and F is not a marital relationship,” while three persons, such as G, are three persons, namely, “E is not a resident, and is not a marital relationship with F.” at the home of the Defendant, Pyeongtaek-si C 106 Dong 401 (D apartment).

Summary of Evidence

1. The legal statement of witness G, E, F, H and I;

1. Statement of the police statement of E;

1. Certified copy;

1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes governing recording records;

1. Relevant Article 307 (2) of the Criminal Act concerning criminal facts, the choice of a fine, and the choice of a fine;

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

1. Judgment on the assertion by the Defendant and the defense counsel under Article 334(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act

1. The summary of the argument and the defense counsel argued that although the defendant stated that "E shall not be deemed a resident," it is true and not a statement that "E and F shall not be deemed a resident," the defendant's speech shall be deemed as "E and F shall not be in a marital relationship," the defendant's speech shall be deemed as unlawful because it solely for the public interest.

2. According to each evidence of the judgment, the Defendant, as a de facto de facto marital relationship that E and F have re-born from around 200 to around 12 years, stated the false facts by stating that “E is not a marital relationship with F,” among three persons, including E, “E is not a marital relationship with F,” and “E is not a marital relationship with F,” even if it is a de facto marital relationship that E and F were married and live together for about 12 years.

Meanwhile, as a matter of principle, Article 310 of the Criminal Act concerning the denial of illegality cannot be applied to defamation of false facts (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2003Do601, May 16, 2003): Provided, That where an act of damaging a person’s reputation by openly pointing out false facts is not punished, the actor believed that such fact is true, and there are reasonable grounds to believe such act.