Defendant shall be punished by a fine of KRW 1,500,000.

When the defendant does not pay the above fine, 100,000 won.

Punishment of the crime

1. On February 20, 2017, from around 09:00 to 15:00, the Defendant interfered with the victim’s duties by force by posting 105 telephone numbers (G) at the company’s phone number at which the victim F was in office and obstructing the victim’s customer counseling service.

2. The Defendant’s defamation on February 2, 2017, using the Defendant’s e-mail account H around 08:07, using the Defendant’s e-mail account around 08:07 to the e-mail of the company where the said victim was employed, with the e-mail account of the personnel team staff I, J’s personal e-mail address, personnel team staff’s public e-mail account, and attorney K, etc. who represents for a divorce lawsuit against the

L Bags whether FC has been knowingly employed for at least 10 years as to whether the FC has mental capacity or not;

“The transmission of the content” was made.

Accordingly, the defendant has damaged the reputation of the victim by openly pointing out facts.

Summary of Evidence

1. Partial statement of the defendant;

1. Statement made by the police with regard to F;

1. Complaint;

1. Evidence documents (the defendant and his defense counsel asserted to the effect that the defendant's act of making phone calls to the victim's office, such as the facts charged, does not constitute the exercise of force to the extent that the victim's free will or to cause confusion, because the defendant had relatively weak position that he would know the whereabouts of the children by unilaterally and provokinging the victim's three-month children.

However, ‘power of force' means any force that may lead to the suppression and confusion of free will of people, and it is not tangible or intangible or intangible.

In addition, it is sufficient if it is not necessary to control the victim's will in reality by force, and if it does not require the result of interference with business actually, and there is a risk of causing the result of interference with business (Supreme Court Decision 2005 May 27, 2005).