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

On March 3, 2013, the Defendant, as the representative of the Company B, damaged the reputation of the victim by openly revealing facts to the extent of slandering the victim’s reputation by transmitting a pen of the following contents: “D, a transportation engineer of the said Company, worked in F operated by the Victim E, but did not receive wages.” On the ground that D, a transportation engineer of the said Company, served in F operated by the Victim E, using a computer, using the computer, called “Myalalalalalal Scamp Camp Camp” to four companies, such as G, etc., a trader of the victim, using the computer.

Summary of Evidence

1. Partial statement of the defendant;

1. Each legal statement of witness E and D;

1. Application of the Acts and subordinate statutes to the complaint;

1. Article 70 (1) of the Act on Promotion of Information and Communications Network Utilization and Information Protection, Etc. and Selection of a fine concerning criminal facts;

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

1. The defendant asserts that the defendant's assertion of Article 334 (1) of the Criminal Procedure Act is true that the mail was transmitted as stated in the facts constituting a crime, but there was no performance.

Public performance, which is the constituent element of the crime of defamation, refers to a state in which many and unspecified persons can recognize it, and even if the facts are publicly known to one person, if there is a possibility of spreading them to an unspecified or many unspecified persons

(see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2010Do14037, Feb. 28, 2013). According to each of the above evidence, the Defendant began to run a 14 business entities trading the victim, and transmitted the mail of the same content as the facts constituting the crime in the judgment.