A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for six months.

However, the execution of the above sentence shall be suspended for a period of one year from the date this judgment becomes final and conclusive.

Criminal facts

The defendant is a professor of the film department in the previous C School and a film debate.

On March 6, 2017, the Defendant had an interview with “G” H and “I” the subject of the traditional teahouse “F” located in Jung-gu Seoul, Jung-gu, Seoul. The fact was that the Victim J did not attend an open opening ceremony before the “K commemorative tower” at the time of the 2001 North Korea, and was not present at a place without the government’s permission, despite the fact that the Defendant did not unconstitutional on the said commemorative tower and did not attend a place without the government’s permission, the Defendant was against the said H for the purpose of slandering the victim.

The member of the National Assembly in the area where he is living is also required.

The commitment with the government at the time of the North Korea was made and the opening ceremony was present before the "K Commemorative tower".

I have presented a pledge of non-participation to the government at that time, and have presented it in the commemorative material asserting that the Korean Peninsula should be notarial.

Recognizing that “” was “N” as the title “N” published in the G April 2017, and the contents of the interview were reported as they were.

Accordingly, the defendant has damaged the reputation of the victim by openly pointing out false facts through publications for the purpose of slandering the victim.

[Defendant and his defense counsel asserted that the defendant was not guilty because there was no awareness of false facts and there was no purpose of slandering against the defendant. However, on January 13, 2008, 2008, see the defendant's referenced by the records, or on August 15, 2001, 150 persons, such as chief artists or Q, were present in the opening ceremony. However, without confirming specific facts, the defendant presumed that the injured party, who is an artist of inventive step toward the inventive step, was present in the opening ceremony only on the basis of two Internet newspapers without confirming specific facts, and interviews the reporter and person, and thus, the defendant did not do anything about the contents of the article, such as criminal facts.