Defendant shall be punished by a fine of KRW 3,000,000.

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

Punishment of the crime

No person shall defame another person by openly pointing out false facts through an information and communications network with intent to defame another person.

On November 2, 2017, the Defendant had access to B at an infinite place, and there was a fact that the victim was between the victim’s female employees in the group B, who were in office with the victim C, who was in office with the company partner C, and the victim was inside the Defendant.

Despite the absence of the festest, the complainant did so at a time with the intention to defame the complainant.

At the time of the speech, the victim's reputation was damaged by publicly indicating the false fact that it was the day when the local customer was listed.

Summary of Evidence

1. The witness C’s statement 1, and the police interrogation protocol against the defendant, the injured person had an unfeasible appraisal by speaking that the injured person would unfasible female employees and the defendant's appearance;

Part stated

1. B-1 copy of a conversation (3-1 times a net time) (In full view of the conversation between the Defendant and other female employees in B before and after the statement of the facts constituting the crime, which was duly adopted and investigated by this court, and the language, attitudes, etc., the Defendant may fully recognize the fact that the Defendant made a false statement for the purpose of slandering the victim)

Application of Statutes

1. Article 70 (2) of the Act on Promotion of Utilization of Information and Communications Network and Information Protection, etc., concerning facts constituting a crime and the selection of a fine;

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

1. The reason for sentencing of Article 334(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act, even though the defendant committed the instant crime for the purpose of obviously slandering the defendant, who is a company member, was bad, the crime of this case was denied. However, the circumstance that the defendant was the first offender, and the room used for the instant crime was not open to the general public for access at will by many unspecified persons, is the reason for the instant crime.