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 22, 2017, the Defendant sent a false message (hereinafter referred to as the “instant message”) stating that “E is a vocational high school graduate from a high school,” even if the victim D obtained a high school graduate from a high school through a certification announcement, the Defendant sent the victim D’s false fact that “E was a graduate from a vocational high school,” and that: (a) the victim D obtained a bachelor’s degree, master’s degree, and a doctor’s degree at the F University; (b) the victim D was a person who obtained a bachelor’s degree, master’s degree, and a doctor’s degree at the F University; (c) the Defendant passed the IS Internet lecture at the GHP Internet of the 2005 (hereinafter referred to as “E”) but was not admitted.”

Accordingly, the defendant has damaged the honor of the victim D by openly pointing out false facts.

Summary of Evidence

1. Partial statement of the defendant;

1. Each legal statement of witness D, J, B, and C;

1. The Defendant and C received delegation from C of the management of the building lease by the Defendant and C of the Kakakao Stockholm conversation, degree certification, and pass announcement. As part of the building lease management work, the Defendant sent the instant message to B and C to report the results of investigation into the victim’s personal information, the Defendant did not have the intention of defamation. Considering the relationship between the Defendant, B and C, which share the leased business, the Defendant and C did not have the possibility of informing many unspecified persons of the content of the said message.

In other words, the defendant was entrusted with the lease management of the building from B, in other words, the following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and investigated by this Court.

There is no evidence to see that the Defendant engaged in the business of leasing B, C, and building, ② there is no fact that C had given the Defendant an instruction by giving the Defendant to find out the identity of the victim at the time of sending the instant message, ③ the relationship between C and the victim.