beta
Text
Defendant
A shall be punished by a fine of 300,000 won, and by a fine of 4,00,000 won, respectively.
The above fines are imposed by the Defendants.
Reasons
Punishment of the crime
1. On November 3, 2012, Defendant A: (a) around the street of the victim E, the mother of the victim E located in the former North Korea-gun; (b) even though there was no fact that the victim had the victim hedged with B, who was the victim’s child; (c) the victim had 10 residents of the community, including H, who visited for the victim’s marriage, in order to be married to the victim’s marriage, he would be good for the said F to have a separate and distinct child; (d) in order to achieve the awareness, Defendant B and her living in Korea. It was a graduate school that we wanted to take to take. Our country’s marriage place was not found to have tried to find the victim’s reputation even if she tried to find it in the middle.) thereby publicly pointing out a false fact, thereby impairing the victim’s reputation by openly pointing out that sound.
2. Defendant B
A. A. Around January 20, 2013, the Defendant posted a statement on the Defendant’s house located in Jeonbuk-gun, Jeonbuk-gun, the Act on Promotion, etc. of Information and Communications Network Utilization and Communications Network Utilization and Information Protection (Defamation) on the following: (a) despite the fact that the Defendant was not in an inappropriate relationship with G, the Defendant was in violation of the Act on Promotion, etc. of Information and Communications Network Utilization and Communications Network Utilization and Information Protection (Defamation) on the part of the Defendant; (b) in the name of “J” in the victim’s smartphone phastm, which was the victim’s lux, using a mobile phone in the name of “J”, stating that “E is good for the victim’s luxane lux, and that there was an inappropriate relationship between G and E, inasmuch as there was a human being, such as the luxar, who returned to the Defendant at any time and at any time.” (c) Notwithstanding the fact that the Defendant’s cell phone was not damaged the victim’s reputation by openly revealing the Defendant’s mobile phone.