A defendant shall be punished by a fine of 500,000 won.

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

Punishment of the crime

The defendant is the chairperson of the Trade Union and Labor Relations Adjustment Committee, and the victim D is the representative of the E agency in the preceding week.

1. The Defendant: (a) around September 29, 2016, on the bulletin board of the NAV Dob Dob Dob, which was used by approximately 2,300 non-regular car sales clerks; and (b) “D Dob Dob,” which was known to the employees.

The name of the dismissed shall be the name of the dismissed.

븅 닭!!” 라는 글을 게시하여 피해자를 공연히 모욕하였다.

2. 피고인은 2016. 11. 7. 경 위 네이버 밴드 ‘ 금속노조 C 지회’ 의 게시판에 “D 이놈!! 너 좆됐다 ㅋ!!” 라는 글을 게시하여 피해자를 공연히 모욕하였다.

Summary of Evidence

1. Partial statement of the defendant;

1. Statement made by the police against D;

1. Application of the Acts and subordinate statutes of Chapter 3 to the efaculation screen in writing prepared by the defendant;

1. Relevant Article 311 of the Criminal Act and the choice of fines for criminal facts;

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. On September 29, 2016, Article 334(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act, the judgment of this court on the assertion of legitimate acts by the Defendant and his defense counsel was duly adopted and investigated as follows. In other words, in relation to the writing published by the Defendant on September 29, 2016, the Defendant posted a notice stating that “the Defendant is capable of having a victim and has an agency closed” and posted the same writing as the facts of the offense on the ground that the name of the dismissed was falsified, and the Defendant posted an insulting statement on the grounds that the name of the dismissed was falsified, and the same article as the facts of the offense was written on the notice related to the strike around November 7, 2016. Each of the facts of the Defendant’s criminal facts, such as the Defendant’s criminal facts, was insulting regardless of the basic rights asserted by the Defendant, and the circumstances surrounding the instant crime, as a whole, were examined.