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

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

Punishment of the crime

On April 23, 2015, the Defendant was sentenced to imprisonment with labor for a crime of compulsory indecent act, interference with the performance of official duties, and violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes in Seoul Western District Court on April 23, 2015 and the said judgment became final and conclusive on October 29, 2015.

The defendant is the representative of the defendant B, and the victim C is the executive officer of the above B, and the defendant and the victim have disputed the problem of the defendant's wife among the above organization's activities, and the victim filed a complaint against the defendant as an insulting crime and the conflict of appraisal has occurred.

During that period, the Defendant, at a non-permanent place in Seoul on November 19, 2014, refers to a group Stockholm with 21 members of B executive staff members, and refers to the victim, and “I am ice, I am ice, I am ice, I am scare, I am scare, I am scare, I am scare, I am scare, I am scare, and

In holes, the Dog, the Dogly erred by legal principles, and now the knife has been the front of the knife at present.

If it is a condition that D would have reached an agreement between C and C due to the same situation after D's rejection of a life-sustaining straw, or that D's complaint would have been received from C's death and each letter, it would be defective. Bosh's idea in Joh's Republic of Korea

The term "patently insulting the victim by inserting the language of "."

[The defendant asserts that the act of the court below was not unlawful since he posted a letter to the Stockholm of a secret organization, so there was no performance, and even if not, it did not violate the social norms.

As long as it is difficult to conclude that there is no possibility of dissemination even if the Defendant posted the article as stated in its holding in the Stockholm, the performance of the act is recognized as long as it is difficult to conclude that there is no possibility of dissemination among the limited members.

② According to evidence duly adopted and examined by this Court, the victim first posted a statement that slanders the Defendant on his SNS, thereby committing defamation, and the Defendant’s act is both B and B’s officers.