A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for six months.

However, the execution of the above punishment shall be suspended for two years from the date this judgment becomes final and conclusive.

Punishment of the crime

The Defendant is the operator of the Internet portal site “C” (D) and is a person who uses and works for a separate name “E” in the number of 2,000 members of the Internet portal site at the number of 2,00 members:

On September 29, 2016, at around 21:16, the Defendant, at the office of the Defendant, posted a computer on the Defendant’s 3rd floor of the F Building in Gwanak-gu, Seoul Special Metropolitan City, hereinafter “H.”), drafted a letter “H.” with the title “H,” “for the purpose of slandering the victim’s G on the free bulletin board,” and made it possible for an unspecified number of members who subscribed to the said car page to see the said letter by posting the victim’s real name and face pictures together with the victim’s photo.

However, the victim's referring was not ‘K' with a rumor that he/she was active as the Japanese police in the Japanese colonial era, and that his/her independence movement was involved in the self-harm of J, and the Defendant copied this article from Internet social network service ‘Pest' without undergoing the minimum fact-finding procedure, and posted it as above.

Ultimately, with a view to slandering a victim, the Defendant revealed a false fact openly through an information and communications network, thereby impairing the reputation of the victim.

Summary of Evidence

1. Statement by the defendant in court;

1. The police statement concerning G;

1. A complaint;

1. Application of the Acts and subordinate statutes to a copy of a sign language closure data and a copy of a copy thereof;

1. Article 70 (2) of the Act on Promotion of Information and Communications Network Utilization and Information Protection, Etc. and the Selection of Imprisonment with labor concerning criminal facts;

1. Article 62 (1) of the Criminal Act;

1. The defendant and defense counsel alleged to the effect that there was no purpose of slandering the victim since they posted an article on the public interest of the Kapets for the victims who performed the past public service. However, the defendant and defense counsel alleged to the effect that there was no purpose of slandering the victim. However, the contents and nature of the timely fact, and the publication of the relevant fact, known by each of the above evidence