If the defendant does not pay the above fine, KRW 100,000.

1. In the middle of July 2016, the Defendant of defamation, even though the Victim C did not commit an act with the authority of the head of a convalescent hospital or the head of a convalescent hospital, etc., the Defendant “Cl year F, G, and the head of a convalescent hospital” was the victim’s hearing by D and E.

“.....”

Accordingly, the defendant has damaged the reputation of the victim by openly pointing out false facts.

2. The Defendant’s insult calls from the victim, J, K, etc. to E in a “I” restaurant located in Kimcheon-si, Kimcheon-si on August 11, 2016, and refers to whether he/she has been a victim and “h”;

Miscellaneous year goes across the water because of the passage in the section, and the water flow.

“The term “ was so large as to be”.

Accordingly, the defendant openly insultingd the victim.

Summary of Evidence

1. Each legal statement by a witness C, D, and J;

1. Written complaint prepared in C (the defendant and his defense counsel did not have any statement identical to the facts charged in this case in the case of the defendant, and the defendant took the above statement in family affairs;

Even in the case of insulting crimes, it is argued that the public performance cannot be recognized because it is merely a telephone conversation.

However, according to the evidence mentioned above, the facts that the defendant made each statement, such as the facts of the crime in the judgment, are sufficiently recognized, and in the case of the insult crime, all participants including victims who were at the scene of telephone conversations between the defendant and E were disseminated directly.

In addition, “public performance”, which is the element of the crime of insult, refers to the state in which many and unspecified persons can be recognized, and even if one person gives such a speech, if there is a possibility of spreading it to an unspecified or many unspecified persons, the requirements of public performance are satisfied (see Supreme Court Decision 2005Do3540, Sept. 15, 2005, etc.). At the time, only the defendant made the above speech to E, who is the other party to a telephone.