1. The defendant shall be punished by a fine not exceeding two million won;

2. Where the defendant fails to pay the above fine, one hundred thousand won.

Punishment of the crime

The defendant is a person who is employed by the victim C as a representative of the victim C in April 2009 and is working as an assistant for activities of disabled persons.

On November 6, 2014, the Defendant used his smartphones to conduct a Kakao Kakao Stockholm-style 84 primary inspections on the Kakao Kakao Kakao Stockholm-style room. “The term “the head of C and the warden,” as a result of a special inspection conducted by the head of C and C in the welfare department, Do, and Si (Cheong Office) in a soften-year book, provided that there was an opportunity to manipulate the head of the warden even if the 10-year book was discovered and there is certain evidence;

A false verification was made that a 300% bonus for a worker with a thickness of her product was paid, and a false publication was made, such as false confirmation, interference with union activities (defense evidence), local governments, welfare assistant guidelines, and the fact that a person with a disability is engaged in bad behavior.”

Accordingly, with the aim of slandering people, the Defendant posted a false fact openly through the information and communication network, thereby impairing the honor of the victim.

Summary of Evidence

1. Partial statement of the defendant;

1. A protocol concerning the examination of the police officers of the accused;

1. Statement made by the police against C;

1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes to notices of the results of disposition on accusation cases, such as the accusation site, Kakao Stockholm course photograph, the closure screen north of the Kakasp, and the closure screen;

1. Article 70 (2) of the Act on Promotion of the elective Use of Information and Communications Network and Information Protection, Etc. concerning facts constituting an offense;

1. The Defendant and his defense counsel’s assertion in the cases of Articles 70(1) and 69(2) of the Criminal Act concerning the custody of the workhouse, asserts to the effect that the Defendant did not have any falsity, and that the content posted in the Kakao special group hosting room was not false, and that C did not have any purpose of slandering C, and that it was for the public interest.

According to the evidence duly adopted and examined, the following facts are recognized.

(1) A joint inspection on D of the Health and Welfare Council was conducted on May 2014, and the result thereof is excessive.