Defendant shall be punished by a fine of KRW 1,000,000.

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

Punishment of the crime

On September 9, 2015, the Defendant, who was a member of the Victim C, called “D” club with the Victim C, called the victim’s workplace to the Seocho-gu Seoul E 9th floor Foman Management Team. On September 9, 2015, the Defendant called the victim’s workplace, and called “C, along with the past C C weather, was the member of the Gocc, and C C left the club by causing water to the Gocc., and the members of the club filed a complaint with defamation of early C C C in 2015, and C C was paid a penalty of KRW 2 million by openly pointing out the fact.

Summary of Evidence

1. Partial statement of the defendant;

1. Statement made by the police against C;

1. Details of e-mail of the G vice head;

1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes to a report on investigation;

1. Article 307 (1) of the Criminal Act applicable to the relevant criminal facts and Article 307 (1) of the Selection of Punishment;

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

1. The defense counsel's assertion regarding the defense counsel under Article 334 (1) of the Criminal Procedure Act of the Provisional Payment Order. The defendant's statement as stated in the facts charged was made in 1:1 telephone conversations with G Deputy head of the Human Resources Management Team affiliated with the Human Resources Management Team dealing with disciplinary duties, etc. against the misconduct of employees at the victim's workplace. The G Deputy Director argues that the defendant's statement of fact does not have a performance in the statement of fact since he/she is a person in an occupational relationship with which he/she can expect that the facts should not be disseminated externally

However, only the defense counsel's assertion, GJ has a job-related relationship in which the defendant can expect that the facts should not be disseminated without permission from the outside.

In addition, this part of the defense counsel's assertion is not acceptable, as long as the G Deputy head had actually disseminated the facts from the Defendant to the Defendant, such as the head of the human resources management team H and the victim's technical team I, etc., as seen in the above evidence.

The defense counsel stated in the facts charged by the defendant.