A defendant shall be punished by a fine of 500,000 won.

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

Punishment of the crime

On August 17, 2016, the Defendant: (a) on August 17, 2016, using the NAB “B”; (b) using the NAD’s “C” ID; and (c) talked with the victim E using the NAD, and comments on comments made by the comments made by the Defendant, the Defendant, while talking with the victim E using the NAD, “n’s pictures”, must be changed from the victim’s “n’t or he’t.e., the Defendant. (b) is cut down.”

. (b) this son. (Ch.) .. (C.) published a statement that is, “the head of the Tong and the head of the Tong, the head of the Tong, the member of the member of the member of the member of the member of the member of the member of the member of the member of the member of the member of the member of the member of the member of the household

Summary of Evidence

1. Partial statement of the defendant;

1. Statement made by the police for E;

1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes on carpet photographs;

1. Article 311 of the Criminal Act applicable to the facts constituting an offense and Article 311 of the choice of punishment;

1. Article 70(1) and Article 69(2) of the Criminal Act to attract a workhouse;

1. Determination on the Defendant’s assertion under Article 334(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act

1. The summary of the argument refers to the defendant's act of the defendant's act that refers to the fact that the defendant suffered damage from the damage, which is to prevent other people from causing the harm again, and there are some improper expressions in the process.

Even if it does not violate social rules, illegality is excluded.

2. Even if the filing of a matter concerning the public review of the public existence of the judgment should be widely permitted, the method of expression should be selected on the basis of respecting the character of the other party, and there should be any matters subject to criticism, regardless of whether it is permitted to gather maliciously without supporting the specific circumstances.

Even if a person’s personal attack is caused by an ambiguous expression, a legitimate act cannot be established (see Supreme Court Decision 2006Do4408, Apr. 24, 2008). This Court legitimately adopted it.