Defendant shall be punished by a fine of KRW 5,000,000.

When the defendant does not pay the above fine, 100,000 won.

Punishment of the crime

On May 8, 2014, the Defendant: (a) was the general secretary of the E High School’s parents association located in Seoyang-gu, Seoyang-gu; (b) was the F department store “G” restaurant located in Seoyang-gu, Seoyang-gu, Seoyang-gu; (c) was damaged the honor of the victim by openly pointing out false facts by stating that “The victim H, who is the principal of the E High School, was divorced from the former principal I, despite the absence of the fact that the victim H was divorced by the former principal I, the principal of the E High School, 5 of the above school parents of the above five of the five of the students was heard by the above school; (d) the husband was divorced from the husband who was winded by the principal; and (e) the husband was the husband who was the winded by the principal; (e) who was the other party of the winded; and (e) who was the former principal.”

Summary of Evidence

1. Application of the respective statutes on witness H, J and K’s statutory statement;

1. Article 307 (1) of the Criminal Act applicable to the crimes;

1. Articles 70 (1) and 69 (2) of the Criminal Act for the detention of a workhouse;

1. Judgment on the assertion of the Defendant and the defense counsel under Article 334(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act

1. The alleged defendant did not have any talk about the victim at the time and place as stated in its reasoning.

2. Examining the facts that the testimony of the witness J and K corresponds to the specific and major parts, and the following circumstances acknowledged by the record are added, the Defendant’s assertion is proven to the extent that there is no reasonable doubt that the Defendant had undermined the reputation of the victim by talking in its reasoning, as stated in its reasoning. Therefore, the Defendant’s assertion cannot be accepted.

① At the time of the occurrence of the instant case, N, which had an assistant principal of E High School, did not conflict with a victim who was the principal.

(2) N appears to have been aware of the victim's privacy, such as details of divorce, from other teachers and staff.

(3) N shall have the remainder between the defendant and the school day which was the vice-chairperson of the preceding Steering Committee of the E High School.