정보통신망이용촉진및정보보호등에관한법률위반(명예훼손)
The prosecution of this case is dismissed.
1. The Defendant of the facts charged in the instant case is a person who suffers from mental illness, such as stimulative disorder, and is divorced from the victim C in 2010.
On August 16, 2015, the Defendant used a computer installed in the EPc room located in D on the Internet next website, and connected her husband F with “H” and connected her husband F with “G” on the bulletin board,” and “AH” as the title “A victim, even in the hhhn period, did not go too much to commit a crime, that is, a person who had the members enjoy the plastic bag with nnife.e., the nife., the nife.e., the nife., the nife.e., the nife., the victim, even
At least 15 times in marriage life, the victim, who had been forced to be hospitalized, had been able to shotly blicked, was placed in the front of the vehicle by seizing Handphones in which he wanted to make a telephone, and did not refuse to do so to do so to K in the back of the back of the vehicle and to go to the Matern National Hospital.
D. C. A.S. Cor not be good and open, and C.S. Corresponded to the frequency;
Magres Doz.
Embryptian도요
Around December 13, 2010, a statement stating that the victim forced himself/herself to be hospitalized in a mental hospital was published.
However, on December 13, 2010, there was only a fact that the injured party hospitalized the defendant at a mental hospital by requesting the purport that the defendant would find the injured party and request him to change to the mental hospital. However, there was no fact that the injured party forced the injured party to be hospitalized.
In order to defame the victim, the Defendant posted public false information via the following information and communications network, thereby impairing the honor of the victim.
2. The instant case is a crime falling under Article 70(2) of the Act on Promotion of the Use of Information and Communications Network and Information Protection, Etc., and cannot be prosecuted against the victim’s express intent under Article 70(3) of the same Act. The victim wishes to punish the Defendant after the instant indictment.