When the defendant does not pay the above fine, 100,000 won.

Around 18:53 on June 1, 2019, the Defendant: (a) made use of CAD “D” (E) for the purpose of slandering the victim B; (b) posted a false statement on the free bulletin board of “C KapetF” to the victim via “D” (E); and (c) posted a false statement on the victim’s reputation through an information and communications network from around 15 repeated notice to August 4, 2019, including a false statement on the fact that: (a) self-regulation is required/commercial (200/00; and (b) a false statement on the victim’s reputation.

Summary of Evidence

1. A protocol of partial police interrogation of the accused;

1. Each police statement concerning B;

1. The defendant asserts that a criminal investigation report (a written statement and materials submitted by the complainant), investigation report (a telephone conversation between the victim B) and investigation report (a document attached to the records related to the victim B narcotics inspection) are not aimed at slandering the victim, since he prepared a notice at a public interest level

“Purpose of slandering a person” under Article 70(2) of the Act on Promotion of Information and Communications Network Utilization and Information Protection, Etc. is to require a person’s intent and purpose. Whether a person is intended to defame a person ought to be determined by weighing and balancing the degree of infringement of honor that may be damaged or damaged by the expression, taking into account the contents and nature of the alleged fact, the scope of the other party to whom the fact is published, and the method of expression itself.

Where the timely facts are related to the public interest, the purpose of slandering shall not be denied, except in extenuating circumstances, but “where the timely facts are related to the public interest” means “where the public interest.”