beta
Text
The prosecution of this case is dismissed.
Reasons
1. The Defendant is a person who is engaged in the sales business of fishery products between ( milk)B.
No person shall divulge a false fact openly through an information and communications network with intent to defame another person, thereby impairing the reputation of another person.
Nevertheless, the Defendant, on October 14, 2012, sold fishery products in front of the building in front of the building in front of his/her own North Korea, and asked his/her his/her wife G with the aim of slandering the victim on the ground that he/she told him/herself that he/she would not be able to perform funeral services, and requested the victim’s husband and wife of the Defendant residing in Songpa-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government F 403 on October 21, 2012, and received money by threatening not only class 1 disabled persons but also other olds, although he/she had resided in the second floor of the H building in which he/she had defaulted for 20 years before 20 years, and on the bulletin board of the Internet Support Center for Civil Petitions of Songpa-gu, Seoul, the Defendant received money from him/her. Grade 1 disabled persons are collecting KRW 1.5 million per year and KRW 2.5 million per year for funeral service on the side of his/her own building;
As a result, the Defendant, through information and communication network, revealed public false information, thereby impairing the honor of the victim E.
2. The above facts charged constitute an offense falling under Article 70 (2) of the Act on Promotion of Information and Communications Network Utilization and Information Protection, Etc. and cannot be prosecuted against the will specifically manifested by the victim pursuant to paragraph (3) of the same Article.
However, on March 14, 2013, after the prosecution of this case, a written agreement was submitted to the court on March 14, 2013 to the effect that "the injured party has agreed with the defendant and withdraw defamation complaint," and the prosecution of this case is dismissed pursuant to Article 327 subparagraph 6 of