beta
Text
A defendant shall be punished by a fine of 500,000 won.
When the defendant does not pay the above fine, 100,000 won.
Reasons
Punishment of the crime
The defendant is the team leader of the Korean Montreal CUU, and the victim D works as the Home School Teachers from the Korean Montreal C to the November of the same year from July 2016.
From November 2016 to December 2016, the Defendant refers to G, a Korean Montreal parents, to the victim, who is a bad credit holder or a bad credit member, at the F. M. F. F. F. F. F. F. F. F. F. F. F. F. F. F. F. F. F. F.
“The honor of the victim was damaged by publicly alleging the fact.”
Summary of Evidence
1. Application of the respective legal statements of witnesses D and G to the Acts and subordinate statutes;
1. Article 307 (1) of the Criminal Act applicable to the relevant criminal facts and Article 307 (1) of the choice of punishment;
1. Article 70(1) and Article 69(2) of the Criminal Act to attract a workhouse;
1. The portion not guilty under Article 334(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act, which is the order of provisional payment
1. From November 2016 to December 1, 2016, the Defendant injured the victim’s reputation by openly pointing out facts by referring to “a woman who is divorced” to the G, a Korean Montreal parents, who is the victim of the damage, in front of the Fro in Gunsan, Sinsan-si, Sinsan-si.
2. Determination
A. The Defendant consistently denies that there was no such a statement as above, and there was a statement in the victim’s legal testimony, the police and the prosecution as evidence consistent with this part of the facts charged, and the purport of this is that the victim confirmed from G and H that the Defendant said the victim as a woman of divorce.
B. However, G consistently from the investigative agency to the present court, the victim was not able to hear the statement that the victim was a divorced woman directly from the Defendant. However, G transferred the statement to H.
In the investigative agency, H stated that the defendant was not clear whether the victim was the victim of the divorce, but rather the victim was the victim of the damage and the victim was the victim of the bad credit standing.
statement is made.
(c)
Taking into account this point;