Defendant shall be punished by a fine of 1.5 million won.

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

Punishment of the crime

The Defendant is a person who has been entrusted with the net operation of his/her own horse to the Yangyang-gun C small-gun D horse club in Gyeonggi-do, which operated his/her own horse.

1. On June 2, 2019, at around 16:42, the Defendant, etc. of the Act on Promotion, etc. of Information and Communications Network Utilization and Communications Network Utilization and Information Protection (Defamation) posted a statement that “the assistant principal of the horse with the horse” prepared by the victim by accessing the ECF to the clinic of “G” and “the assistant principal of the horse with the horse”, and posted a statement that “the assistant principal of the horse with the view of applying mutatis mutandis the principle of mutatis mutandis taxation, so as to be unsatised.” At around 16:44 of the same day, the Defendant posted a statement that “the assistant principal of the horse with the view of applying mutatis mutandis applying mutatis mutandis the principle of mutatis mutandis taxation,” and “the 1.5 million won system is limited to the head of the horse riding”, and the animal abuser was aware of the beginning.

However, in fact, the head of the horse bend has to be the defendant, and the victim did not abuse the horses in a way that does not give the horses to the horses.

Accordingly, the defendant has damaged the reputation of the victim by divulging public false information through information and communication network with a view to slandering the person.

2. 모욕 피고인은 2019. 6. 2. 16:32경 E카페 F에 ‘G’이라는 닉네임으로 접속하여위 카페에 게시된 ’굴요(屈橈)ROLLKUR에 대해서'라는 게시글에 ‘거룩하신 원장님 반성하겠습니다. H님 이분 참 개새끼죠 자식들까지 욕을 하고 허긴 장가도 못갔으니'라는 댓글을 게시하여 피해자를 모욕하였다.

Summary of Evidence

1. Partial statement of the defendant;

1. Statement of the police officer to I;

1. Investigation report ( telephone conversations between persons for reference and J);

1. The defendant and his/her defense counsel asserts that he/she posted comments on the same comments as facts constituting the crime in the judgment of the defendant, but all true facts are true and for the public interest, and therefore there is no intention of defamation and insult.

However, according to the evidence of the judgment, the defendant.