On October 28, 2016, the Defendant, “E,” as the title, “E,” for the purpose of slandering the victim to Internet CKapet D mainly used by the nationals of Vietnam, at an inf hotel located in the Si of Vietnam, around October 28, 2016.

A person who does not use Vietnamese unfortunately has the ability to use several million won per person.

(m) The customer is aware of his identity and chip to commit fraud.

(m) do not return to the author after requesting the return of the fraud-friendly premium.

I.

(b) The first 30 first half is the fraud chip. The first chip is an interview.

I would like to receive a fraudulent amount from this section.

Do Governor도요

A notice was posted to the effect that the term “ Many minutes of the school.”

However, in fact, the victim, at the request of the defendant on October 2016, through the brokerage of the resale of office debentures in the city of Vietnam at the request of the defendant, only received the amount equivalent to the premium paid by the defendant to the existing owner according to customary practices, and did not have obtained the money by deceiving the defendant, and the defendant was aware of such circumstances.

The Defendant, as above, posted a false fact openly through an information and communications network, thereby impairing the honor of the victim.

2. In a judgment criminal trial, the facts constituting the elements of the crime charged are the prosecutor’s burden of proof, whether it is a subjective requirement or an objective requirement. Thus, in the case where the facts were prosecuted for the crime of defamation of reputation for false facts through an information and communications network as provided in Article 70(2) of the Information and Communications Network Act, the fact that the person’s social evaluation was revealed, and the alleged facts are not only false because they are not consistent with the objective truth, and