2017 Highly 395 Defluence

A

Kim Jong-American (Court of Second Instance), Lee Byung-si (Court of Second Instance)

Attorney B (Korean National Assembly)

January 12, 2018

Defendant shall be punished by a fine of KRW 1,000,000.

When the defendant fails to pay the above fine, the defendant shall be confined in a workhouse for the period converted into one day.

In order to order the provisional payment of an amount equivalent to the above fine.

Costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the defendant.

Criminal facts

The defendant is the NAP PP, who works as the d'D' on the "C bulletin board" among the Internet drone sites, and the victim E is the NA PP, who works as the d'F' and 'G' on the above bulletin board.

The Defendant posted a malicious writing, such as “h's dump dump dump by dumping dump with a hump,” etc., on the bulletin board of ordinary times, and made frequent time with NAPs by the Defendant.

On April 24, 2016, the Defendant reported to the effect that “the Defendant was discharged from military service as of March 31 of this year,” which was posted by the victim on April 24, 2016, and the Defendant posted a statement to the effect that “the Defendant was aware of the fact that he was discharged from military service on March 31 of this year,” and that it was a brupted statement to the effect that he was “sick.”

On April 24, 2016, at a place where it is difficult to identify a place for a short time, the Defendant publicly insultingd the victim by openly citing the title “G (the name of the victim) on the bulletin board of the saiddisad C, which means that a complaint is filed against the victim is filed.”

The Defendant posted a letter related to the victim, such as the list of crimes in the attached Form, at least three times in total on the same day, thereby openly insulting the victim.

A summary of the steam

1. Partial statement of the defendant;

1. Legal statement of witness E;

1. Statement to E by the police;

1. A complaint;

1. A copy of each DNA post;

1. Investigation report (specific suspect);

1. Requests for the provision of communications data;

Application of Statutes

1. Article applicable to criminal facts;

Article 311 of the Criminal Code (Embrying; Selection of Fine)

1. Aggravation for concurrent crimes;

Articles 37 (former part), 38 (1) 2, and 50 of the Criminal Act

1. Order of provisional payment;

Article 334(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act

1. Bearing litigation costs;

Article 186(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act

Judgment on the argument of the defendant and defense counsel

1. Defendant and his defense counsel’s assertion

The defendant did not prepare criminal facts in his judgment.

2. Determination

In light of the following circumstances acknowledged by the aforementioned evidence, the above assertion by the defendant and his defense counsel is not accepted, since there is no reasonable doubt that the defendant prepared a written statement on the facts constituting the offense in the judgment of the court, and the victim insults the victim.

A. On April 24, 2016, the victim and the investigative agency and this court act as the clinic of ‘F' and ‘G' from the ‘C bulletin board' among the drone sites, and the defendant is working as the clinic of ‘D'. On April 24, 2016, the defendant and his/her clinic insultingd himself/herself as criminal facts in the judgment of the defendant. The defendant and his/her clinic cannot be used by any other person as a fixed clinic, and other people could have identified himself/herself as a clinic by giving his/her identification card pictures, etc. while fighting several times.

B. The criminal facts of the judgment were written as D's fixed clinic, and the insured of the above clinic was named as 'A', 'J', 'A', 'A', 'A', 'B', 'A', 'A', 'A', 'A', 'D', 'D', written as a fixed clinic, 'D', 'A', posted a photograph of the defendant's resident registration certificate, and 'the defendant stated 1,3 times the attached list of crimes until the first trial date, it is reasonable to view that the criminal facts of the judgment was posted by the defendant.

C. In light of the fact that around April 24, 2016, the Defendant and the victim did not express a victim’s name on several occasions on the Internet bulletin board, and the Defendant and the victim provided information that could identify themselves by posting identification cards, etc. during the horse fighting, the Defendant and the victim continued to use the Internet bulletin board as indicated in the judgment of the Defendant and the victim, and the other users who use the above Internet bulletin board also knew that the Defendant and the victim made comments by selecting the victim, it is reasonable to deem that the Defendant and the victim were insulting the victim even if the Defendant did not express the victim’s name (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 82Do1256, Nov. 9, 1982; 200Da50213, May 10, 2002; 2007Hun-Ma461, Jun. 26, 2008).

Reasons for sentencing

A favorable reason is that the defendant is the first offender, and this case is a case for which the defendant requested a formal trial before the revision of the Criminal Procedure Act, and the defendant cannot be sentenced more severe punishment than the punishment of the summary order pursuant to Article 457-2 of the Criminal Procedure Act.

There is a reason that the defendant did not take any measure for the recovery of damage due to unfavorable circumstances.

The above circumstances and other factors, including the Defendant’s age, character and conduct, environment, motive, means and consequence of the crime, and the circumstances after the crime, etc., shall be determined as ordered by taking into account the various sentencing conditions under Article 51 of the Criminal Act.

Judges Jeong-ho

A person shall be appointed.