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

Defendant

A is a person who uses NAD.

around 11:54 on January 22, 2016, the Defendant connected the article of "E" to the article of "E" in the U.S., and tried to account for the F 1910 F Mota, middle of 27 January 2016.

G posted the comments on the comments of "I am remarkably inside of the answer", and posted the false comments on the victim F at least seven times, such as the statements in the list of crimes in the attached Table, thereby impairing the honor of the victim.

Summary of Evidence

1. A protocol of suspect interrogation of some police officers against the defendant (the part on which a statement of facts constituting the crime was posted);

1. A written statement;

1. A copy of the examination record of witnesses H (Seoul Northern District Court 2017 High Court 2017 High Court 2048 High Court 2017 High Court 2017 High Court 2714 High Court 2017 High Court 2714) of each witness G; a copy of the examination record of witnesses G (Seoul Central District Court 2017 High Court 7789

1. Application of each statute of the judgment;

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

1. The former part of Article 37 of the Criminal Act, and Articles 38 (1) 2 and 50 of the same Act, which aggravated concurrent crimes;

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

1. Determination as to the assertion by the Defendant and his/her defense counsel under Article 334(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act

1. The summary of the argument is that the Defendant’s writing written comments cannot be deemed false, and the Defendant believed that the content of the comments written on several press reports was written on the basis of the press reports, and thus, there was no perception that the content of the comments was false.

G is a public official official of the victim who has established a relationship with G as the total number of the I and is also a public official, and since the internal relationship of G affects the future shares of I, it was a purpose of slandering the defendant as a matter related to public interest.

shall not be deemed to exist.

2. The judgment is based on the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court.