A defendant shall be punished by a fine of 500,000 won.

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

Punishment of the crime

On March 18, 2012, the Defendant posted a statement that “The problem of art will be solved by the logic of the arts” with respect to the victim C who criticized the art administration of Seoul by using one’s Twitter (B), which is a SNS media. The Defendant publicly insultingd the victim by publishing the statement that “The problem of art will be resolved by the logic of the arts.”

Summary of Evidence

1. Partial statement of the defendant;

1. Each prosecutor's statement concerning C and D;

1. A complaint;

1. Twitter;

1. Application of statutes to e-mail statements

1. Relevant Article 311 of the Criminal Act concerning facts constituting an offense and Article 311 of the Selection of Punishment;

1. Articles 70 and 69 (2) of the Criminal Act for the detention of a workhouse;

1. Defendant’s assertion and judgment under Article 334(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act

1. The Defendant asserts that, in light of the background behind the Defendant’s posting of the Twitter writing written in the facts charged in the instant case (hereinafter “the instant Twitter”), the victim knew of the posting at the time of posting the Twitter in the light of the background leading up to the Defendant’s posting of the Twitter writing, the victim knew of the posting at the time of posting the aforesaid Twitter, and that six months have passed since the filing period

The main sentence of Article 230(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act provides that "no complaint shall be filed after the lapse of six months from the date on which a person becomes aware of a crime subject to victim's complaint," which means that a person who has a right to file a complaint becomes aware of a crime and a criminal is aware of the crime to the extent that he/she can file a complaint from the ordinary standpoint, and that a person who has a right to file a complaint has a conclusive perception of facts that there was a

(See Supreme Court Decision 2001Do3106 Decided October 9, 2001, etc.). According to the evidence duly adopted and examined by this court, the victim cited each Twitter written by the Defendant in the text pertaining to “E” and “F” around February 4, 2012 and around March 16, 2012, and the victim cited each Twitter written by the Defendant.