Defendant shall be punished by a fine of KRW 2,000,000.

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

Punishment of the crime

On March 3, 2018, the Defendant visited the C University Environmental Design Department, located in Franchi-gu B, Busan, and visited the teaching assistants D or Buddhist graduate students for any reason, and asked the victim E, who is attending the above department, in the restaurant operated by the Defendant, and the fact that the victim E did not live with the male or have a private relationship with the professor, but is not good for private life. The E student is a man who is living with the male or has a private relationship with the professor. The student is a man with poor living attitude and is a man who is well-known with the male. It is doubtful that the private relationship with the professor is doubtful to receive the credits from the university.”

Accordingly, the defendant has damaged the reputation of the victim by openly pointing out false facts.

Summary of Evidence

1. Partial statement of the defendant;

1. Application of the Acts and subordinate statutes on witness D and E's respective legal statements;

1. Article 307 (2) and (1) of the Criminal Act applicable to the relevant criminal facts and the choice of punishment;

1. Articles 70 (1) 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. The summary of the Defendant’s assertion is about the public interest, and the Defendant believed that it was true, and there were reasonable grounds to believe that it was true, so the Defendant’s act is dismissed from illegality.

2. Of the facts alleged by the Defendant, the part that “the victim had lived with the male” does not relate to the public interest in its content.

In addition, the part that “a private relationship with a professor is doubtful to receive university credits well is also acknowledged as the primary purpose or motive of the defendant, and thus, it is difficult to view that it is for the public interest.”

Furthermore, the defendant is based on objective and reasonable data or grounds.