Defendant shall be punished by a fine of two million won.

If the defendant does not pay the above fine, 50,000 won.

Punishment of the crime

On August 10, 2012, the Defendant sent to the E market shareholders (F and 20) a document sent out by the victim C (the age of 68) and the “E market” located in Seongbuk-gu, Sungnam-si, with the right to operate the E market. On August 10, 2012, the Defendant sent the document stating that “C is not the Chairperson, and “C” and “A person who is in the old salption, and was in the old salption, is merely a person who cares for people, and is in no way irrelevant to the E market.”

However, on May 31, 2012, the victim was elected as the chairperson of the E market Management and Operation Committee at the extraordinary general meeting, and is the registration director of G Co., Ltd., a major shareholder of the E market.

The Defendant damaged the reputation of the victim by openly pointing out false facts.

Summary of Evidence

1. The legal statement of the witness C;

1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes to a petition filed in C (including attached documents);

1. Relevant Article 307 (2) of the Criminal Act concerning criminal facts, the choice of punishment, and the choice of fines;

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

1. The Defendant asserts that the illegality of the facts stated in the facts charged in the instant case constitutes a true fact and a timely statement for the public interest is dismissed pursuant to Article 310 of the Criminal Act, and even if it is false, it constitutes a case where there are reasonable grounds to believe that it is true facts, and thus, illegality is excluded.

In order to establish the “crime of defamation by a false fact” under Article 307(2) of the Criminal Act, the criminal should publicly indicate the fact, and should have been aware that the publicly alleged fact impairs the people’s social evaluation, and should have been false (see Supreme Court Decision 9Do4757, Feb. 25, 200), and where the material part in this context is consistent with objective facts, the criminal should have been aware that such a fact is false (see Supreme Court Decision 9Do4757, Feb. 25, 200).