Where the defendant fails to pay the above fine, one million won shall be the one day.

The defendant is a member of the Dongdaemun-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government D R&D redevelopment project partnership, and the victim E is a person appointed as the president of the above redevelopment project partnership around 2008 and dismissed from office from the president of the partnership around November 201, 2013.

Defendant around July 12, 2014, at the Defendant’s home located in Eunpyeong-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government, to catch the occupant’s trees by using a computer at the Defendant’s home located in Eunpyeong-gu, Seoul, to the end of “G” opened and operated by the members of the said redevelopment and consolidation project association.

‘ 라는 제목의 피해자에 대한 글에 ‘H( 아이 디 I)’ 이라는 닉네임으로 “ 타이어보다 찔긴 년.. 그럴수록 더 깊은 나락으로 떨어질 텐데 저런 찔긴 타이어를 심어 놨으니 허나 여긴 폐차장이 아니 거든 폐차장으로 어서 들 꺼지셔” 라는 내용의 댓 글을 게시하여 공연히 피해자를 모욕하였다.

Summary of Evidence

1. Partial statement of the defendant;

1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes to data upon closure (25 pages of investigation records);

1. Relevant Article of the Criminal Act and Article 311 of the Criminal Act concerning the crime. Article 311 (Selection of Penalty Penalty)

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

1. The defendant and his defense counsel on the assertion of the defendant and his defense counsel under Article 334(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act asserts that the defendant's act constitutes a justifiable act because it does not violate social norms.

In a case where a certain letter contains a judgment or opinion containing especially insulting expressions, in light of the sound social norms in that era, in a case where such expression can be seen as an act that does not contravene social norms, there may be cases where the illegality should be determined exceptionally in accordance with Article 20 of the Criminal Act (see Supreme Court Decision 2005Do1453, Dec. 23, 2005, etc.). However, even after the end of the above “the foregoing”, it may be deemed that the illegality of the expression should be avoided exceptionally (see Supreme Court Decision 2005Do1453, Dec. 23, 2005, etc.).

The contents of the "Notice", the contents of other comments on that comments, and the nature of the above G car page.