Defendant shall be punished by a fine of KRW 1,000,000.

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

Punishment of the crime

The defendant and the victim B are members of the Internet Mamof Kafe "C" and they have a pro-friendly relationship.

Around June 15, 2019, the Defendant made a telephone conversation with D, a member of the above carpet, and the Defendant, despite the absence of any concealment of the fact that the victim remarrieds, thereby impairing the honor of the victim by openly pointing out false facts to D, stating that “The victim had a child created between the former husband and the latter husband, who was still married with the latter husband, and the former husband was forced to have the mother’s mother due to the pregnancy of the latter husband, while the latter was pregnant by the latter, while the latter was hiding, and the latter was born between the former husband and the latter husband.”

Summary of Evidence

1. Application of each recording record of the Defendant’s respective legal statements against witness B, D, and E, the CD on June 18, 2019, and the transcript file CD on June 15, 2019 to the Defendant’s partial statement by law.

1. Article 307 (2) of the Criminal Act and Article 307 of the same Act concerning the crime, the selection of fines;

1. Article 70(1) and Article 69(2) of the Criminal Act to attract a workhouse;

1. The summary of the Defendant’s assertion on the assertion of the Defendant and his defense counsel under Article 334(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act is as follows: (a) the Defendant: (b) made inquiries about the victim’s recidivism in telephone conversations with D; and (c) made such inquiries passive in the process of making an answer to the victim, and (d) did not actively made a statement about the victim as described in the facts charged; and (b) did not recognize at least the falsity.

2. Determination

A. On June 15, 2019 and June 18, 2019, a recording tape recording the contents of conversations with a person other than an investigation agency, who recorded the contents of conversations with a person other than the defendant, does not differ from documents stating the statement of a person other than the defendant, except the provisions of Articles 311 and 312 of the Criminal Procedure Act. Thus, the defendant does not have the same.