Defendant

B, C, and D shall be punished by a fine of KRW 300,000.

The above Defendants did not pay the above fines.

Punishment of the crime

Defendant

D On March 26, 2009, the Seoul Northern District Court sentenced two years of suspension of execution to 8 months of imprisonment with labor due to general traffic obstruction, etc., and the said judgment became final and conclusive on April 3, 2009.

1. Around February 2, 2009, Defendant C posted a phrase “F” on the Internet’s following site at a place unclaimed on the Internet (htp:/aa.media. d.umt) at the debate room, which read “htp”, and publicly insultd the “F” of the victim.

2. On February 3, 2009, Defendant B published a phrase “F” on the part of Defendant B, at the above Arade site, by inserting the phrase “G lux and F seeds” at the debate room of the said Arara, thereby insulting Defendant B “F.”

3. 피고인 D 피고인은 2009. 2. 2.경 장소불상지에서 위 아고라 토론방에 ‘전문시위꾼 F 똘마니들’ 이라는 제목하에 "단단히 각오하고 와라 존만이들아‘ 라는 내용의 글을 게재하여 공연히 피해자 ‘F'를 모욕하였다.

Summary of Evidence

1. The Defendants’ respective legal statements

1. Entry of each part of the defendant B and D in the first trial record;

1. Legal statement of the witness H;

1. The police statement of H;

1. Data on bulletin boards, including the purport of the operation of the F site;

1. Photographs photographs and photographs of the available landslide hosted by the F;

1. FNAC terms and conditions;

1. Previous conviction (Defendant D): Application of the Act and subordinate statutes as a result of criminal records and Konet case search;

1. Relevant Article 311 of the Criminal Act concerning the facts constituting a crime by Defendant B, C, and D.

1. Handling concurrent crimes (Defendant D) (latter part of Article 37 and Article 39 (1) of the Criminal Act;

1. Articles 70 and 69(2) of the Criminal Act for detention in a workhouse (Defendant B, C, and D);

1. Article 334(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act (Defendant B, C, and D) of each of the above orders for provisional payment (the defense counsel of the accused may not be the victim of the offense of insult independently. However, the aforementioned defense counsel's assertion is rejected in light of the F's operational status and activities acknowledged by each of the above evidences.)