Defendant

Both parties

Notarial deeds (prosecutions), Han Jin-hee (Public Trial)

Law Firm Masan, Attorney Park Jong-soo

Suwon District Court Decision 2010 High Court Decision 2084 Decided January 18, 2012

The judgment of the court below is reversed.

Defendant shall be punished by a fine of KRW 2,000,000.

When the defendant fails to pay the above fine, the defendant shall be confined in a workhouse for the period converted by 50,000 won into one day.

In order to order the provisional payment of an amount equivalent to the above fine.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal (misunderstanding of facts and misapprehension of legal principles)

A. Defendant

1) As to defamation

A) As to whether the victim’s sexual attitude of “○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○” (hereinafter “victim’s organization”) was well-known about Nonindicted 1’s death and the circumstances leading up to such death

피고인이 ☆☆☆☆☆총연합회 ▽▽▽▽▽대책위원회 부위원장 및 ◎◎◎◎교회의 목사로서 피해단체의 성도들과 상담하는 과정에서 ‘피해단체의 성도들이 공소외 1의 사망 사실과 그 경위에 관하여 잘 알지 못한다’는 사실을 알게 되었고, 이는 피해단체에서 이탈한 성도들에 의해서도 확인되었는바, 이를 허위의 사실이라 할 수 없다.

B) As to whether Nonindicted 3’s overlap or fourth denial is made by Nonindicted 1

피고인은 ☆☆☆☆☆총연합회의 2000. 10. 26.자 연구보고서, 대한◁◁◁◁◁◁총회(합동) 측의 2008. 9. 연구보고서, ▷▷▷▷ ▷▷▷▷▷▷연구소의 ‘♤♤♤ ♤♤♤♤(자칭 ◈◈◈ ◈◈◈◈)’, 공소외 3의 전 남편 공소외 6의 간증문에 근거하여 공소외 3을 공소외 1의 첩이나 넷째 부인이라고 적시하였는바, 이를 허위의 사실이라 할 수 없다.

C) Even if the above alleged facts were false, the Defendant believed that the above facts were true and there were reasonable grounds to believe such facts. As such, the Defendant’s act of indicating the above facts for the normal religious life of the readers is dismissed in accordance with Article 310 of the Criminal Act. Meanwhile, the Defendant’s act should be permitted as an exercise of the right to criticize other religious or religious groups guaranteed by the freedom of religion.

2) As to the violation of the Copyright Act

공소외 1의 설교 장면을 촬영한 사진은 인터넷 포털사이트인 ◐◐에 널리 퍼져 있는 것으로서, 여기에 작성자의 창조적 개성이 드러나 있다고 볼 수 없으므로, 이를 창작성이 있는 저작물이라 할 수 없다.

B. As to the part not guilty in the judgment of the court of original instance

1) Violation of the principle of no accusation

In the court of the court below, the prosecutor specified the following facts by modifying the indictment that “the fact is not that Nonindicted Party 1 1 drinked and died at a restaurant, and the sexuality of the damaged organization is well known to Nonindicted Party 1’s death and its background, and Nonindicted Party 3 damaged the reputation of the victimized organization by openly pointing out false facts as follows, although it is not denied: The other contents are not included in the scope of trial, but are not included in the scope of trial. However, the court below held that the portion which is not specified as the aforementioned false facts is not included in the scope of trial, i.e., “the second woman is g., one g., one g., one g., one g., one g., one g., one g., one g., one g., one g., one g., one g., one g., one g., one g., one g., one g., one g., one g., one g., one g., one g., one g., one g., one g.................

2) As to the Defendant’s statement on the background of Non-Indicted 1’s death to the effect that “the air conditioner school” and “Non-Indicted 1 1 flurged in a restaurant and flurged in a hospital and moved to a hospital, but died of heavy wind.”

The Defendant’s speech that the damaged organization’s “coverbrhion” was made by means of suggesting that “Nonindicted 1 died of a frigerent frigerent frigerent frigerent friger friger friger friger friger friger friger friger friger friger friger friger friger friger friger friger friger friger friger friger friger friger friger friger friger friger friger friger friger friger friger friger friger friger friger friger friger friger friger friger friger f

2. Determination

A. Ex officio determination

Before the judgment on the grounds for appeal by the defendant and the prosecutor, the prosecutor examined the case ex officio, and the part of defamation which the court below acquitted each of the defendants, which was judged not guilty, was added to the crime and applicable provisions of the Criminal Act, and added to the charges that "refeasiblely damaged organizations" and "publicly damaged organizations" as stated, and applied for amendments to Bill of Indictment. The judgment below against the defendant was added to the judgment upon permission by this court. Thus, the judgment below cannot be maintained as it is.

However, notwithstanding the above circumstances, the argument of mistake of facts and misapprehension of legal principles by the defendant and the prosecutor is still subject to the judgment of this court, so it will be examined first.

B. As to the Defendant’s assertion of mistake and misapprehension of legal principles

1) As to defamation

원심 및 당심이 적법하게 채택하여 조사한 증거들을 종합하여 인정할 수 있는 다음과 같은 사정들 즉, ① 피해단체의 목사인 공소외 2의 수사기관 및 원심 법정에서의 진술과 피해단체의 ‘△△ △△△ 교재’ 및 소식지 ‘□□□□□’ 등의 내용을 보면, 피해단체의 성도들이 공소외 1의 사망 사실 및 그 경위에 대하여 알지 못한다고 보기 어려운 점, ② 한편, 유사 사건에서의 확정판결( 서울남부지방법원 2008노1286 , 대법원 2009도3696 )을 보면, ‘냉면 먹다 급사한 공소외 1’은 ‘공소외 1이 냉면을 먹다가 그로 인해 그 자리에서 사망하였다’는 내용의, ‘공소외 1과 간통했다는 공소외 3’은 ‘공소외 3이 배우자가 아닌 공소외 1과 육체적인 성관계를 맺었다’는 내용의 각 사실을 적시한 것으로서, ‘냉면 먹다 급사한 공소외 1’과 관련하여, 공소외 1은 1985. 2. 24. ‘○○○○ ○○’ 신도들과 함께 점심 식사로 국수를 먹은 직후 지병인 뇌출혈이 발병하여 병원으로 이송되어 다음날인 1985. 2. 25. 부산 (이하 생략) 소재 ◇◇◇병원에서 사망하였음에도 그와 달리 ‘○○○○ ○○’에서 신앙의 대상이 되는 존재인 공소외 1을 우스꽝스럽게 묘사하여 비하하는 내용으로서, 이는 허위인 것으로 볼 수 있고, ‘공소외 1과 간통했다는 공소외 3’과 관련하여, ‘○○○○ ○○’는 공소외 3을 ‘재림예수님’인 공소외 1의 영적 신부로서 ‘영의 어머니’로 믿고 있는 것에 불과할 뿐 공소외 3이 공소외 1과 육체적인 성관계를 맺은 사실을 인정할 수 있는 구체성 있는 자료가 없는 이상 이는 허위인 것으로 볼 수 있다고 판단하였고, 이 사건에서 심리하여 보더라도 달리 공소외 1과 공소외 3이 간통하였다고 볼만한 객관적 자료를 발견할 수 없는 점, ③ 또한 피고인은 ☆☆☆☆☆총연합회 ▽▽▽▽▽대책위원회 부위원장이자 대한◁◁◁◁◁◁ ▽▽(▽▽▽)피해대책 조사연구위원회 연구분과 분과장을 맡고 있는 등 ☆☆☆☆☆총연합회의 이단문제 최고 전문가 중의 한 사람임에도, 만연히 소속 단체에서 작성한 연구보고서 등만을 보고 더 이상의 사실관계 등을 확인하지 아니한 채 공소외 3이 공소외 1의 첩 내지 넷째 부인인 것으로 믿었다는 피고인의 변소는 쉽게 수긍이 가지 않는 점 등을 종합하여 보면, 피고인의 위 발언 내용은 허위라고 볼 수밖에 없고, 그럼에도 피고인이 위 확인되지 않은 사항에 대하여 그 진위 여부를 확인하려는 노력도 없이 마치 그것이 진실인 양 단정적으로 말하며 수차례 강연을 하였다는 점에서 피고인에게 최소한 미필적으로라도 위 허위인 점에 대한 인식이 있었다고 볼 수밖에 없다.

In addition, even if the Defendant actually believed that the above alleged facts were true, in light of the various circumstances mentioned above, it is difficult to deem that there was a justifiable reason for the Defendant to believe such facts, and thus, it cannot be deemed that the Defendant constitutes grounds for rejection of illegality, such as the assertion thereof.

Meanwhile, Article 20(1) of the Constitution provides that “All citizens shall enjoy freedom of religion.” Freedom of religion includes freedom of mission to promote a religion that they believe and to identify new believers. Freedom of mission includes freedom to criticize other religions or to recommend religious believerss. While freedom of mission is subject to protection of freedom of expression at the same time, criticism of religious propaganda and other religions is also subject to protection of freedom of expression. However, in this case, Article 20(1) of the Constitution of the Republic of Korea on Freedom of religion has the nature of special provisions regarding freedom of expression Article 21(1) of the Constitution on Freedom of religion. As media and publication for religious purposes are highly guaranteed compared to other media and publication, in particular, the purpose of media and publication is high level of guarantee of freedom of religion than other religious or religious groups, and in particular, the act of the Defendant’s disclosure of contents to criticize believerss belonging to the same religious group and the act of criticism against his or her religious doctrine beyond the scope of his or her freedom of religion should be announced to the maximum extent possible (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2008Do109.

Therefore, the defendant's above mistake of facts and misapprehension of legal principles are without merit.

2) As to the violation of the Copyright Act

In order for a work to be protected under the Copyright Act, it shall be a creative production belonging to the scope of literary, scientific or artistic works, and in the case of photographs, if the photographer's identity and creativity exist in the course of the selection of the recipient's body, the establishment of a Gu road, the direction and quantity of light, the establishment of a camera angle, the speed of the stacks, the capture of the stacks, other methods of photographing, the phenomenon and painting, etc., it constitutes a work protected under the Copyright Act (see Supreme Court Decision 2005Do3130, Dec. 8, 2006, etc.).

In other words, the following circumstances that can be recognized by comprehensively taking account of the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court below and the court below, i.e., ① the photograph of this case taken by Nonindicted 1 at a church in a place where she sets up a show of worships, and the photographer appears to have artificially fabricated, such as the drawing of pictures, setting of background, light quantity, and camera, etc., and the above photograph may be deemed to contain the identity and creativity of the photographer to maximize the natural and serious figures of Nonindicted 1. Thus, the above photograph may be deemed to constitute a work protected under the Copyright Act. ② The above photograph does not seem to have been widely spread on the Internet, and the defendant used it without permission from the lecture to criticize the damaged organization without permission of the damaged organization, which is the copyright holder of the above photograph, the defendant's assertion that the above photograph, as recorded in the facts charged, has infringed on the copyright of the damaged organization can be justified.

C. Regarding the prosecutor's assertion of mistake and misapprehension of legal principles

1) The summary of this part of the facts charged (not guilty in the original judgment)

가) 피고인은 2009. 7. 7.경 오산시 ▒▒읍에 있는 “●●●●교회”에서, 위 교회 교인들이 듣고 있는 가운데 표 연번 제3번 기재와 같이 말함으로써 공연히 허위의 사실을 적시하여 피해단체의 명예를 훼손하였다.

나) 피고인은 2009. 10. 18. 14:30경 평택시 (주소 1 생략) 에 있는 “▲▲▲▲▲▲교회”에서, 위 교회 교인들이 듣고 있는 가운데 표 연번 제4번 기재와 같이 말함으로써 공연히 허위의 사실을 적시하여 피해단체의 명예를 훼손하였다.

다) 피고인은 2009. 10. 18. 19:30경 및 같은 달 19.경 군산시 (주소 2 생략)에 있는 “■■■■교회”에서, 위 교회 교인들이 듣고 있는 가운데 표 연번 제5번 기재와 같이 말함으로써 공연히 허위의 사실을 적시하여 피해단체의 명예를 훼손하였다.

라) 피고인은 2009. 10. 23. 20:30경 구리시 (주소 3 생략)에 있는 “◆◆◆◆교회”에서, 위 교회 교인들이 듣고 있는 가운데 표 연번 제8번 기재와 같이 말함으로써 공연히 허위의 사실을 적시하여 피해단체의 명예를 훼손하였다.

마) 피고인은 2009. 11. 13. 17:30경 전북 (주소 4 생략)에 있는 “★★★★대학교”에서, 위 학교 학생들이 듣고 있는 가운데 표 연번 제10, 11번 각 기재와 같이 말함으로써 공연히 허위의 사실을 적시하여 피해단체의 명예를 훼손하였다.

바) 피고인은 2009. 11. 18. 19:00경 강릉시 (주소 5 생략)에 있는 "▼▼▼▼교회"에서, 위 교회 교인들이 듣고 있는 가운데 표 연번 제12번 기재와 같이 말함으로써 공연히 허위의 사실을 적시하여 피해단체의 명예를 훼손하였다.

사) 피고인은 2009. 12. 20. 15:00경 강원 (주소 7 생략)에 있는 “◀◀◀◀교회”에서, 위 교회 교인들이 듣고 있는 가운데 표 연번 제16번 기재와 같이 말함으로써 공연히 허위의 사실을 적시하여 피해단체의 명예를 훼손하였다.

2) The judgment of the court below

On each of the above facts charged, the lower court acquitted each of the above facts charged with no proof of crime as follows.

A) As to the statement No. 3 of the table No. 3

① The part of the Defendant’s speech, “I am on the Internet,” which read, “I am on the part of I am on the part of I am on the part of I am on the part of I am on the part of I am on the part of I am on the part of I am on the part of I am on the part of I am on the part of I am on the part of I am on the part of I am on the part of I am on the part of I am on the part of I am on the part of I am on the part of I am on the part of I am on the part of I am on the part of I am on the part of I am on the part of the damaged organization

② The part of the Defendant’s speech that “the second female son is now v. N. L. L. L. L. L. L., I. L. L. L. L., I. L. L., I. L. L., Non-Party 3 expressed the fact that Non-Party 3 was a subject of a religion. Although it is a somewhat diss.v., whether the crime of insult may be established or not does not constitute an expression that may infringe on the social value or assessment of the victimized organization. Even if the above expression is objectively viewed, it does not constitute an expression that it would infringe on the social value or assessment of the victimized organization.” Even if it is or on the premise that it is “non-party 3 is believed to be N. L., I. L., I. L., I. L., Non-Party 3 does not belong to “fact,” which can be proven in the legal sense that falls under the sphere of religion or philosophy, and it does not constitute a statement of fact in the crime

B) As to the statement No. 4 of the table No. 4

The facts that a person died, the fact that the body was decomposed by death, the fact that the body was cryped with meals, the fact that the body was cryped with fry, and the fact that the name of sick person was cryped, etc. do not constitute an infringement upon the social value or assessment of a person as a case where a natural phenomenon is extremely natural or may usually come around. This part of the Defendant’s statement does not appear to constitute a crime of defamation, even though the Defendant’s statement was not cryped, it was used in a cryp, and died after being diagnosed with cryp at a hospital, and the body was decomposed.” Although it contains some false facts, it constitutes a crime of defamation by Non-Indicted 1 ( even if it was based on the doctrine of the injured organization, Non-Indicted 1 had the body of a person) belonging to social norms, and thus, it does not constitute a crime of defamation in light of social norms.

C) As to the statement No. 5 No. 5 of the table

The defendant's statements in this part do not constitute defamation for the reasons as described in paragraphs (1) and (b) above.

D) As to the statement No. 8 of the table No. 8

The Defendant’s remarks do not constitute defamation for the same reason as described in paragraphs (a) and (b) above.

E) As to the statement Nos. 10 and 11 of the table Nos. 10

1. The tenth number per annum.

The expression “a short-term party owner” is merely an expression of a critical opinion or evaluation by the defendant that the damaged organization or its doctrine belongs to the so-called “along with the general public,” and does not constitute “a statement of fact” in the crime of defamation. As seen in paragraphs (1) and (b) of the above Article, this part of the statement by the defendant does not constitute a crime of defamation.

2. The 11th portion per annum.

However, the expression “Non must be infinite” is merely a mere expression that accepts the doctrine of a victimized organization called “Non one Non and another woman” as a somewhat dissatisfy expression, and does not constitute a statement of fact as referred to in the crime of defamation.

The expression “If this woman Non-Indicted 3 appears in front of her believers, she can not see her nose on the ground.” The expression “Non-Indicted 3 expressed about Non-Indicted 3 by scarving the damaged organization’s members for extreme examples. It is separate from whether the crime of insult, etc. is established, and the fact that the members of the damaged organization have extreme examples against Non-Indicted 3, even if it includes false facts, it does not constitute a content that may infringe on the social value or evaluation of the damaged organization.

Therefore, this part of the Defendant’s remarks does not constitute defamation crimes.

F) As to the statement No. 12 No. 12

This part of the Defendant’s statement does not constitute defamation for the same reason as described in the above (b).

G) As to the statement No. 16 of the table No. 16

Whether a person outside the public prosecution is a person living in the territory of whom he or she is born. The part " which was born in the territory of the Governor of Jeollabuk-do, where he or she is the head of the Gun of Jeollabuk-do." does not constitute an expression that infringes on the social value or evaluation of a damaged organization, and the remaining expression does not constitute a crime of defamation. Thus, this part of the statement of the defendant does not constitute a crime of defamation on the grounds as seen in paragraphs (a) and (b) above.

3) Determination of the immediate deliberation

A) Whether there is a violation of the principle of non-defluence

According to the principle of no accusation, a court shall be tried without a public prosecution by a public prosecutor, and a court shall judge only the case of public prosecution by a public prosecutor (see Supreme Court Decision 2001Do5304, Dec. 27, 2001, etc.).

According to the records, as of May 13, 201, the prosecutor of the court below applied for the amendment of the indictment to the effect that “The facts are not that Nonindicted Party 1 1 flicked in a restaurant and used it on his own, but the sexuality of the damaged organization is well known about the death and its circumstances, and Nonindicted Party 3 did not deny it, even if Nonindicted Party 1 flicked with the public, it is not that it damages the reputation of the victimized organization by openly pointing out false facts,” and it can be recognized that the prosecutor's above amendment of the indictment was permitted on the third day of the same day. Accordingly, the following parts of the charges are specified, namely, “if the second woman flicked in a flick, it would be difficult for the prosecutor to understand that it is an incidental charge to the above charges, and it is difficult for each woman flick-gun to understand that it is an incidental charge to the above charges, even if it is not possible to understand that it is an incidental charge No. 1 (No. 3).10).

B) As to the Defendant’s statement on the background of Non-Indicted 1’s death to the effect that “the air conditioner school” and “Non-Indicted 1 1 flurged in a restaurant and flurged flurged in a hospital, but died of flurged.”

As seen earlier, the court below and the court below found the following circumstances that can be recognized by comprehensively taking account of the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court below. ① As to the background of Non-Indicted 1’s death, it was false that Non-Indicted 1 died on the job, and there was a final and conclusive judgment on the reason of the above death that “non-Indicted 1 died on the job,” which is not a emulsion,” and ② Non-Indicted 1 is the subject of religion in the damaged organization, and in light of the situation at the time of the above statement, the whole context of the expression, etc., Non-Indicted 1’s death can be deemed as infringing on the social value or assessment of the damaged organization by describing Non-Indicted 1’s death in a ludic manner, and ③ the Defendant’s statement that “non-Indicted 1 died on the air condition” is deemed as a whole in view of the overall purport of the expression, and the Defendant’s statement that “non-Indicted 1 died on the part of the damaged organization’s reputation and evaluation.”

3. Conclusion

Therefore, since the prosecutor's appeal is well-grounded, the judgment of the court below is reversed in accordance with Article 364 (6) of the Criminal Procedure Act, and it is again decided as follows.

1. Defamation;

피고인은 안산시 단원구 (주소 8 생략)에 있는 ◎◎◎◎교회의 목사이자 ☆☆☆☆☆총연합회 ▽▽▽▽▽대책위원회의 부위원장인 사람인바, 공소외 1을 재림예수로, 공소외 3을 영의 어머니로 믿는 피해단체를 대상으로 하는 이단세미나를 개최하면서, 사실은 공소외 1이 식당에서 냉면을 먹다가 갑자기 그 자리에서 쓰러져 사망한 것이 아니고, 피해단체 교인들은 공소외 1의 사망 사실과 그 경위에 대하여 잘 알고 있으며, 공소외 3은 공소외 1의 첩이나 넷째 부인이 아님에도, 다음과 같이 공연히 허위의 사실을 적시하여 피해단체의 명예를 훼손하였다.

가. 피고인은 2009. 7. 7.경 오산시 ▒▒읍에 있는 “●●●●교회”에서, 위 교회 교인들이 듣고 있는 가운데 표 연번 제1, 2, 3번 기재와 같이 말함으로써 공연히 허위의 사실을 적시하여 피해단체의 명예를 훼손하였다.

나. 피고인은 2009. 10. 18. 14:30경 평택시 (주소 1 생략) 에 있는 “▲▲▲▲▲▲교회”에서, 위 교회 교인들이 듣고 있는 가운데 표 연번 제4번 기재와 같이 말함으로써 공연히 허위의 사실을 적시하여 피해단체의 명예를 훼손하였다.

다. 피고인은 2009. 10. 18. 19:30경 및 같은 달 19.경 군산시 (주소 2 생략)에 있는 “■■■■교회”에서, 위 교회 교인들이 듣고 있는 가운데 표 연번 제5, 6, 7번 기재와 같이 말함으로써 공연히 허위의 사실을 적시하여 피해단체의 명예를 훼손하였다.

라. 피고인은 2009. 10. 23. 20:30경 구리시 (주소 3 생략)에 있는 “◆◆◆◆교회”에서, 위 교회 교인들이 듣고 있는 가운데 표 연번 제8, 9번 기재와 같이 말함으로써 공연히 허위의 사실을 적시하여 피해단체의 명예를 훼손하였다.

마. 피고인은 2009. 11. 13. 17:30경 전북 (주소 4 생략)에 있는 “★★★★대학교”에서, 위 학교 학생들이 듣고 있는 가운데 표 연번 제10, 11번 기재와 같이 말함으로써 공연히 허위의 사실을 적시하여 피해단체의 명예를 훼손하였다.

바. 피고인은 2009. 11. 18. 19:00경 강릉시 (주소 5 생략)에 있는 “▼▼▼▼교회”에서, 위 교회 교인들이 듣고 있는 가운데 표 연번 제12, 13번 기재와 같이 말함으로써 공연히 허위의 사실을 적시하여 피해단체의 명예를 훼손하였다.

사. 피고인은 2009. 12. 18. 20:30경 서울 영등포구 (주소 6 생략)에 있는 “▶▶교회”에서, 위 교회 교인들이 듣고 있는 가운데 표 연번 제14, 15번 기재와 같이 말함으로써 공연히 허위의 사실을 적시하여 피해단체의 명예를 훼손하였다.

아. 피고인은 2009. 12. 20. 15:00경 강원 (주소 7 생략)에 있는 “◀◀◀◀교회”에서, 위 교회 교인들이 듣고 있는 가운데 표 연번 제16, 17번 기재와 같이 말함으로써 공연히 허위의 사실을 적시하여 피해단체의 명예를 훼손하였다.

2. Violation of the Copyright Act;

피고인은 2009. 2.경 안산시 단원구 (주소 8 생략)에 있는 ◎◎◎◎교회에서, 인터넷 웹 포털사이트 “◐◐”의 게시판 등에 게시되어 있던 피해단체가 저작재산권을 보유하고 있는 저작물인 공소외 1의 설교 장면 사진을 복제하여 피해단체의 저작권을 침해하였다.

Each fact of the judgment No. 1

1. Partial statement of the defendant;

1. The court below's oral statement of the witness non-indicted 2

1. Each statement made by the assistant judicial police officer with respect to Nonindicted 2's written statement, which is consistent with this;

1. Entry of a copy of each written judgment (investigative records, No. 645, No. 659);

1. Entry into a copy of each protocol of examination of the witness (No. 523, No. 1094 of investigation records);

1. Entry of each recording book;

1. Part of the book “○○○○○○ Nonindicted 1 Witness?” (No. 2 of the Investigation Records No. 1100 pages)

1. Entry of copies of △△△△△ materials;

1. To describe a copy of the article “Magsung”;

1. The sound recorded in each CD;

1. Images of images of the screen images to which the closure of a dynamic image is to be taken;

Comprehensively,

Facts No. 2 of the ruling

1. Partial statement of the defendant;

1. The court below's oral statement of the witness non-indicted 2

1. Statement made in compliance with the third statement made by a judicial police officer on Nonindicted 2;

Comprehensively

Each of them can be accepted.

All facts in the ruling are proven.

1. Article relevant to the facts constituting an offense and the selection of punishment;

Article 307(2) of the Criminal Act (only including the fact of defamation, each date of each act), Article 136(1) of the former Copyright Act (amended by Act No. 10807, Jun. 30, 201); the selection of each fine for negligence

1. Aggravation for concurrent crimes;

Article 37 (former part), Article 38 (1) 2, and Article 50 of the Criminal Act

1. Detention in a workhouse;

Articles 70 and 69(2) of the Criminal Act

1. Order of provisional payment;

Article 334(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act

[Attachment Table 1]

Judges Lee Ho-hoon (Presiding Judge)