beta
Text
Defendant shall be punished by a fine of four million won.
If the defendant does not pay the above fine, KRW 100,000.
Reasons
Punishment of the crime
around 10:29 on October 7, 2016, the Defendant: (a) visited the Defendant’s residence located in Gwangjin-gu Seoul Special Metropolitan City (Seoul) and damaged the honor of the Victim by inserting a false fact in the name of “C” (C) with the content that “D. . . . . . . . . . ... Embezzlement the number of white money in the name of the Defendant through the contract to be legally missing,” and then making it open to the public as if the Victim embezzled the funds of the said company; (b) notwithstanding the fact that the Victim D embezzleded the funds of the “E.” operated by the victim D, the Defendant posted a notice on the said Kapet board to the effect that “D. . . . . . . . . ..
The Defendant, “2017 High 1362,” was an employee of the Victim F, “(State) E, a representative director.”
1. The Defendant, at around May 18, 2016, in the Defendant’s residence located in Gwangjin-gu Seoul Special Metropolitan City, around 23:21 on May 18, 2016, opened a mobile phone by using a mobile phone and connected to the NAB “C” in which more than 20 people have joined, and, “I wish to create a community so that the Defendant was able to make it because F Representative was only aware that he would not have any desire to express it in the future, and that he would not have any desire to do so.
A notice stating “The victim was openly insulting by putting a letter to the same effect.”
2. Violation of the Act on Promotion of Utilization of Information and Communications Network and Information Protection, Etc.;
A. On June 21, 2016, the Defendant committed a crime on June 21, 2016, at around 02:2:28, around 201, the residence indicated in paragraph (1) of the same Article, the Defendant opened a mobile phone using a mobile phone and opened up 20 people, and connected to NAC “C”, and the facts did not direct the victim to block some of the telephone numbers from which he was affiliated with the office, and even if the victim incurred profits through the business, the Defendant did not instruct the victim to block the number.