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

If the defendant does not pay the above fine, KRW 100,000.

Punishment of the crime

On May 2, 2015, the Defendant: (a) for the purpose of slandering the Victim C around 17:45 on May 2, 2015; (b) the facts did not exclusively conclude the instant event contract with D and E; and (c) did not have concluded a contract equivalent to KRW 1 billion on a down payment, the Defendant did not appear to have concluded the instant contract with D and E; (d) in F’s G posts, the Defendant’s comments on “Multiple commercial districts Epic events” in writing on “D epicing with red spawn in a large number of gold spawn; (b) the instant event is a blood tax that the instant epicing company, which was the ebbs C, leading to a multiple-year-year-year-old event; and (c) this is also the meaning of the market owner.

The phrase “disorderd the victim’s reputation by putting a false fact open to the public through an information and communications network, and harming the victim’s reputation by pointing out false facts ten times in total, as indicated in the list of crimes in the attached crime, from around the same day to May 13, 2016, as well as from around the same day to around the same day.

Summary of Evidence

1. Partial statement of the defendant;

1. Statement by C by prosecution;

1. C Police Statement Statement;

1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes governing evidentiary materials;

1. Article 70 (2) of the Act on Promotion of Utilization of Information and Communications Network and Information Protection, etc., concerning facts constituting a crime and the selection of a fine;

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

1. Article 70(1) and Article 69(2) of the Criminal Act to attract a workhouse;

1. The Defendant asserts to the effect that the instant notice was not made with a purpose of slandering as a matter of public interest. The Defendant’s assertion as to the assertion by the Defendant and his defense counsel under Article 334(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act.

In full view of the relationship between the Defendant and the victim, the content of the notice, the background and frequency of the Defendant’s writing on the instant notice, etc., the Defendant posted distorted facts rather than for the public interest, etc., thereby making the victimized person commit an unlawful act with the foundation for the revitalization of the gender south commercial zone.