Defendant shall be punished by a fine of one million won.

If the defendant does not pay the above fine, KRW 100,000.

Punishment of the crime

On November 22, 2015, the Defendant: (a) as the title “C” on a free video-sharing website, the Defendant: (b) opened a dog by a dog dog of the D president’s sib dog; (c) opened the dog; and (d) opened the dog.

Does such a person receive a political party?

The purpose of this article is to set up a false banner of facts with the content of "illegal election of the president of the Federation Chairperson, embezzlement of subsidies, and honorary shortness," and put up a video image in which the form of the accused of a one-person demonstration was taken.

Accordingly, the Defendant posted false information openly through the information and communication network for the purpose of slandering the victim E, who is the Chairperson, thereby impairing the honor of the victim.

Summary of Evidence

1. Partial statement of the defendant;

1. Legal statement of the witness F in the fourth public trial record;

1. Data for reporting establishment of the DD, data for the extraordinary general meeting of councillors, and data for the general meeting of representatives for the establishment of the G-integrated organization;

1. Attachment to a written decision on non-prosecution to the complainant;

1. The defendant and defense counsel's assertion and determination of the oil tubes video defendant and defense counsel

1. The summary of the argument is that posting a video image as stated in the facts charged in the judgment of the defendant is for the public interest and thus the illegality is excluded.

2. In light of the determination, the case where illegality is removed pursuant to Article 310 of the Criminal Act is limited to the case where the act under Article 307(1) of the Criminal Act is true and is solely related to the public interest. This provision does not apply to defamation in a timely statement of facts through an information and communications network that requires defamation or a purpose of defamation (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 2008Do699, Oct. 23, 2008; 2012Do2361, Apr. 26, 2012). As such, Article 310 of the Criminal Act concerning the dismissal of illegality is not applicable to this case where the Defendant posted an information and communications network with a false statement of facts against the victim for the purpose of slandering the victim.

Therefore, the above argument is without merit.

Application of Statutes

1. Relevant Articles of the Act and the choice of punishment concerning the facts constituting the crime;