Defendant shall be punished by a fine of KRW 1,200,00.

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

Criminal facts

On November 2, 2012, the Defendant posted a notice stating that “F is a major Japanese officer, who is a public official of the Republic of Korea, who is in the Republic of Korea, and who is in the Republic of Korea with the Dac apartment 201-dong 505’s home, and is in the Republic of Korea with the name of “E”, using the pen name of “F” on the Internet Dental bulletin Board (E) for the purpose of publicly pointing out the fact that “F is a public official of the Republic of Korea, who is an officer of the Republic of Korea, who is in the Republic of Korea with the thickness of Mamo-si and is in the Republic of Korea, and is in the Republic of Korea with the Republic of Korea National Assembly Library for the Republic of Korea, and is in the custody of the so-called Japanese Republic of Korea, with the public document proving that he is in the Republic of Korea, as well as the public document that proves that he is in the reserve of Japan from around 2012 to November 9, 2012.

Summary of Evidence

1. Partial statement of the defendant;

1. Each investigation report (report on specific results of the defendant and presumption of place of crime);

1. The application of the CD-related Acts and subordinate statutes by putting up a sign, putting up a sign, putting up a sign, or putting up a sign;

1. Relevant Article 251 of the Public Official Election Act and Article 251 of the same Act concerning criminal facts;

1. Of concurrent crimes, the former part of Article 37, Articles 38 (1) 2 and 50 of the Criminal Act;

1. Articles 70 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 and the defense counsel asserted that ① the Defendant posted a letter that criticizes a certain area of the Defendant, i.e., duplicating and criticizes posts containing comments that support the G candidate in a biased manner, and thus, the Defendant did not have a purpose to prevent the Defendant from winning the G candidate, and ② the Defendant did not have a criminal intent to defame G candidates and their family members.

2. Determination

A. Whether “the purpose of preventing a candidate from winning an election” is legitimate in this Court.