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

At around 10:00 on February 21, 2013, the Defendant sent to E, who was cleaning at the Defendant’s office, the introduction of the victim D’s 29th floor of the Seocho-gu Seoul Seocho-gu Seoul Seocho-gu C Building 29, a proof that “D has invested KRW 200 million in the shares listed by us, which was delisting, and attempted to return KRW 200 million to D again, and she filed a complaint against us in fraud. D goes through golf as a golf doctor’s and does not normally go with a golf, and its employees are all aware of this fact. As such, D’s employees knew of this fact, it did not necessarily mean that the victim had any improper relationship with F.

Accordingly, the defendant has damaged the reputation of the victim by openly pointing out false facts.

Summary of Evidence

1. Partial statement of the defendant;

1. Legal statement of witness E;

1. E prosecutorial statement;

1. Application of the police statement law to D;

1. Relevant provisions of the Criminal Act and Article 307 (2) of the Criminal Act concerning the selection of penalties;

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

1. As to the defense counsel’s assertion under Article 334(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act of the provisional payment order, the defense counsel made a statement identical to the criminal facts (hereinafter “instant statement”).

Even if the Defendant made the instant statement to E only on a two-side basis with E, and the Defendant asserts to the effect that E did not have any possibility of spreading the instant statement, as it was closely connected with the victim.

Public performance, which is the constituent element of defamation, refers to the state in which many and unspecified persons can recognize it, and even if one person spreads facts individually, if there is a possibility of spreading it to many and unspecified persons, it is possible to spread it against the contrary.