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

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

Punishment of the crime

Since it is judged that there is no substantial disadvantage in the exercise of the defendant's right to defend, the facts charged are organized as follows without any changes in indictment.

【2015 Go fixed 149】 On September 29, 2014, from around 16:20 to 17:20 on the same day, the Defendant posted the F’s “F” card in front of the military E-building in the military E-building operated by the victim C, and interfered with the victim’s duties to the extent of time by spreading false information, such as explaining that our children were faced with medical accidents, by spreading false information.

【On September 27, 2014, the Defendant prepared a letter of “the Do Council member (C) written by the victim for the purpose of slandering the victim C by accessing the Internet homepage (H) in Daegu North-gu, Daegu-gu, in order to access the Internet homepage on September 27, 2014, and interfere with the victim’s work by spreading false facts at the same time as the attached list of crimes, in addition, the Defendant prepared a letter of “the Do Council member (C) with the Do Council member (C) in Korea, Do Council member (hereinafter “Fraud”) and Do Council member (hereinafter “WI”), Do Council member (hereinafter “WI”) after the medical accident.”

Summary of Evidence

1. On-site photographs related to obstruction of business;

1. A report on investigation (as to the academic background of the complainant C)

1. Court rulings, notices of results of the disposition of each case, authentic copies of written judgments, 2012Na24840, written judgments, 2013Da8037, and instruments for degrees;

1. The judgment to the effect that C’s occupational negligence is not recognized in relevant civil cases as to whether the Defendant’s son’s damage, such as the occurrence or aggravation of chronic spine salt, etc. and the occurrence of mental illness, is not recognized due to the occupational negligence of C as to the assertion that the contents of the screen closure are not false or that there was no intention to interfere with defamation and business.