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

If the defendant does not pay the above fine, 50,000 won.

Punishment of the crime

On October 201, the Defendant damaged the reputation of the victim by openly pointing out false facts by stating that “The Victim F reported the E Institute to the Office of Education and controlled the Plaintiff’s retirement lawsuit for an instructor who was in the E Institute and controlled G’s retirement pay and defamation to the Office of Education,” although there was no fact that the Victim F was subject to business suspension by reporting the E Institute to the Office of Education,” the Defendant damaged the victim’s reputation by openly pointing out false facts.

Summary of Evidence

1. Each legal statement of witness F and G;

1. Examination protocol of the accused by the prosecution;

1. An interrogation protocol of the police against the accused;

1. The police statement concerning F;

1. Inquiries and replies to inquiries;

1. Characters printed out;

1. Application of the Kakao Stockholm Acts and subordinate statutes to output the content of the message;

1. Relevant provisions of the Criminal Act concerning facts constituting an offense and Article 307 (2) of the Criminal Act selecting a penalty;

1. Articles 70 and 69 (2) of the Criminal Act for the detention of a workhouse;

1. Judgment on the assertion by the defendant and his/her defense counsel under Article 334(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act

1. On October 201, the Defendant had been aware of the fact that he had reported E/she to the Office of Education at the end of October, 2011, and did not call G to the effect that “the victim reported his/her driving school.”

2. Determination

A. In relation to the motive for the crime, according to the evidence of the judgment as to whether the Defendant was aware of the fact that the reporting person was H around October 201, the Defendant operated the E Institute from October 2007 to August 201, the victim operated the E Institute and operated the J Institute from March 201 to March 201, when operating the E Branch, despite the Defendant’s meta while working at the same E Institute, and from around March 201, G operated the E Institute as a clerical assistant and a part-time lecturer at the E Institute operated by the Defendant from November 209 to June 2011, while serving as a clerical assistant and a part-time lecturer at the J Institute operated by the victim from January 201 to August 2013.