Defendant shall be punished by a fine of KRW 2,000,000.

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

Punishment of the crime

On January 1, 2016, the Defendant dialogueed with E and F at the counseling center of D Beauty Research Institutes located in Busan Eastdong-gu C and 6 Busan, Busan, the lower court held that the Defendant and the Victim G are not in a badial relationship, and that E is in an inappropriate relationship with the victim, despite that the Defendant and the Victim G is not in a badial relationship.

The question " shall be in accordance with the example".

By responding to “the victim’s reputation was damaged by openly pointing out false facts.”

Summary of Evidence

1. Partial statement of the defendant;

1. Each legal statement of witness E and G;

1. Each police statement protocol with respect to E and G;

1. Copy of the statement by relevant witness (H);

1. A written statement of E and F;

1. A transcript of the complaint;

1. The defendant and his defense counsel asserted to the effect that the criminal defendant was investigated by the Yangsan Police Station as a crime of violating the Act on Promotion of the Utilization of Information and Communications Network and Information Protection, etc. (Defamation) around February 2016 (hereinafter “police investigation”), and that the criminal defendant was found to have been found in the instant private teaching institute (hereinafter “the instant private teaching institute”) and the victim did not have a written answer as inhumanity relation, and that there was no statement as stated in the facts constituting the crime in the judgment.

In light of the following circumstances, the evidence duly adopted and examined by this Court was comprehensively taken into account: ① the Defendant, by stating that the Defendant was the Defendant and the Defendant and the victim, who were the original students of the instant private teaching institute, the denial of the principal student interest of the instant private teaching institute, and the Defendant, at the time of the instant case, could have sufficiently known that the instant private teaching institute had been subject to the said written indictment; ② The witness E, a relatively neutral witness, was consistently in the investigative agency and this court; ② the Defendant visited the private teaching institute in January 2016 and visited the private teaching institute in the form of “recording”, indicating his cell phone at the private teaching institute counseling office, and “the victim”.