Defendant shall be punished by a fine of KRW 300,000.

If the defendant does not pay the above fine, 50,000 won.

Punishment of the crime

Around August 2012, the Defendant filed a complaint with D as theft, even though there was no fact that the victim C stolens other things, by stating that “A president filed a complaint with D for larceny. The president’s theft and theft from another dry field was not denied to see it, and that the president did not want to do so, and thus, she only posted a restaurant.” The Defendant injured the victim’s reputation by publicly stating false facts in a public performance.

Summary of Evidence

1. The defendant's partial statement in the third protocol of trial;

1. C’s legal statement;

1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes to investigation reports (to telephone conversations with D);

1. Relevant Article 307 (2) of the Criminal Act concerning criminal facts, the choice of a fine, and the choice of a fine;

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

1. The defendant and his defense counsel on the assertion of the defendant and defense counsel under Article 334(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act of the provisional payment order asserted that the defendant's act stated in the facts charged does not constitute an element of defamation as it

Public performance, which is the constituent element of defamation, refers to a state in which many and unspecified persons can recognize it, and thus, spread facts to one person individually.

Even if there is a possibility that it will be disseminated to many and unspecified persons, the requirements of performance are satisfied.

(See Supreme Court Decision 2007Do8155 Decided February 14, 2008, etc.). In full view of the following: (i) the Defendant was aware of the instant records; (ii) the background leading up to the dialogue with D; (iii) the relationship between the Defendant, the victim; and (iv) the situation at the time of dialogue, etc., it is determined that there was a possibility that the Defendant could spread the above conversation to an unspecified or many unspecified persons; and (iv) the Defendant was aware of it with D.

Therefore, we cannot accept the above argument of the defendant and his defense counsel.