Defendant

A shall be punished by a fine of 300,000 won.

Defendant

If A does not pay the above fine, KRW 100,000.

Punishment of the crime

Defendant

A on July 18, 2018, when communicating with D at one’s home located in Pyeongtaek-si in Gyeonggi-do, A, “E is so E, and thus, patients are not treated at a hospital. E is not incidental to the hospital at the time of the hospital on 365 day of the day. E attempted to devise the head of the secretariat of the hospital. E attempted to devise the head of the bureau of the hospital. E used violence to the employees of the hospital, thereby impairing the honor of the victim by openly pointing out the fact.”

Summary of Evidence

1. Legal statement of witness D;

1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes of recording (D-A);

1. Relevant provisions of the Criminal Act and Article 307 (1) of the Criminal Act concerning the choice of punishment;

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

1. The sentencing grounds of Article 334(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act under Article 334(1) of the Provisional Payment Order shall be determined as ordered in consideration of the contents of the statement of the defendant, the scope of the counter-party, the motive and circumstances leading to the statement, the consequences thereof, and other circumstances revealed in pleadings, including the defendant's age and health, family relationship and living environment, criminal records

The acquittal portion

1. The summary of the facts charged in this part of Defendant A’s defamation around April 2018 is as follows: “E is a seat-free seat-free seat-free seat-free seat-free seat-free seat-free seat-free seat-free seat-free seat-free seat-free seat-free seat-free seat-free seat-free seat-free seat-free seat-free

It is a tin-ro plate who is found in Gwangju.

The hospital was planned to drink the hospital from the beginning.

“The honor of the victim was damaged by openly pointing out false facts”;

However, according to H’s statement, it is unclear whether or not the Defendant simply speaks as above, or whether or not there is a fact that there is any such an action as the above. If the Defendant asked questions to verify the authenticity of an action like the latter, it is the intent of defamation in light of the motive.