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

Where the defendant fails to pay the above fine, one hundred thousand won shall be one day.

Punishment of the crime

피고인은 2012. 6. 26. 07:30경 서울 동작구 E아파트 정문에서, “F회사 집단해고 책임자 G 물러나라!! 어제 1인 시위 고소하셨다지요”라는 내용이 기재된 피켓을 들고 1인 시위를 함으로써 피해자 G의 명예를 훼손하였다.

Summary of Evidence

1. Partial statement of the defendant;

1. Partial statement of witness G;

1. The police statement concerning G;

1. Application of the Acts and subordinate statutes to the scket and demonstration-related suspect photographs;

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. Judgment on 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 notified the victim of the illegality and conducted the instant one-person demonstration in order to realize a fair report, so the Defendant’s act is dismissed in accordance with Article 310 of the Criminal Act.

2. Article 310 of the Criminal Act provides, “When the publicly alleged facts relate to the public interest” refers to an objective point of view, and an actor is also required to explicitly state the facts for the public interest for a subjective purpose. It is widely related to the public interest of these days including not only to the public interest of the State, society, and other general public, but also to the interest and interest of a specific social group or a group of its members. Whether the publicly alleged facts relate to the public interest or not should be determined by comparing and comparing the following circumstances with regard to the expression itself, including the content and nature of the publicly alleged facts, the scope of the party to whom the relevant facts were publicly announced, the method of expression, etc., and the degree of infringement of reputation that may be damaged or damaged by the expression.

(see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2004Do3912, Oct. 15, 2004). The above legal doctrine is applicable.