정보통신망이용촉진및정보보호등에관한법률위반(명예훼손)
A defendant shall be punished by a fine of 500,000 won.
If the defendant does not pay the above fine, 50,000 won.
Punishment of the crime
The Defendant is a mother who was engaged in postnatal care in the “E” postnatal care center operated by the victim D in the third floor of the Seoul Special Metropolitan City, Nowon-gu, Seoul from December 14, 201 to December 27, 2011.
No person shall defame another person by divulging facts openly through an information and communications network with intent to defame the person.
On December 26, 2011, around 16:17, the Defendant: (a) using the title “G” and “H” connected to the F Internet website” (F Internet NAP), “The E Postnatal Care Center Prohibition Response” (hereinafter “E P Postnatal Care Center Prohibition Response”); and (b) under the title “The E Postnatal Care Center Prohibition Response”, the Defendant shall ask for a legitimate demand to 2.5 million won, thereby sound the fluencing and do not do so.
In this respect, all the facts experienced by the No. 30
I do not say that “I will claim damages” rather than “I see I am I am.”
The “F” posted a letter to reveal public facts through an information and communications network, thereby impairing the honor of the E Postnatal Care Center and the victim D, who is the president. From that time to December 30, 201, the Defendant posted a letter on the Internet website of the NAVP by 01:29 on a total of nine occasions, as shown in the attached list of crimes, thereby impairing the honor of E Postnatal Care Center and the president.
Summary of Evidence
1. Partial statement of the defendant;
1. Statement by the prosecution concerning D;
1. Written statements of D;
1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes on a petition;
1. Article 70 (1) of the Act on Promotion of Information and Communications Network Utilization and Information Protection, etc. concerning the relevant criminal facts;
1. Of concurrent crimes, the former part of Article 37, Articles 38 (1) 2 and 50 of the Criminal Act;
1. Articles 70 and 69 (2) of the Criminal Act for the detention of a workhouse;
1. Judgment on the assertion by the Defendant and the defense counsel under Article 334(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act
A. It was true that the Defendant posted the representation of facts constituting a crime, which is the public interest.