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

From July 2016, the Defendant was an employee in charge of the electrical safety inspection of the transaction company C in a company where the victim B is the representative director, and he was processed ex officio on March 31, 2017.

On March 2017, the Defendant visited D and E, a trading company at the end of the week, and disseminated the false fact to the effect that “C’s name was changed to F and was delegated by G directors for the change of the contract. The agent for electrical safety control should be changed from C to F. The agent for electrical safety control should be changed to F.”

However, there is no fact that the Defendant was delegated by G with regard to the change of the contract of the trading company by G, and F is only a company established by the Defendant, and there is no relation with the State.

Accordingly, the Defendant spreads false facts against the trading company (State) and caused the said trading company to dismiss (State)C as an electrical safety supervisor, thereby hindering the victim’s vicarious execution of electrical safety supervisor.

Summary of Evidence

1. Partial statement of the defendant;

1. Statement made by a witness H in the third protocol of the trial;

1. Statement made by a witness I in the fifth protocol of the trial;

1. Application of the Acts and subordinate statutes on witness G's statutory statement;

1. Article 314 (1) and Article 313 of the Criminal Act concerning the relevant criminal facts, the choice of punishment, and the choice of fines;

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

1. Article 334 (1) of the Criminal Procedure Act of the provisional payment order;

1. The defendant asserts that the defendant did not speak like the facts charged, and that the defendant merely stated that he would help the defendant be dismissed in a sound manner, and that he did not interfere with the victim's work.

However, in light of the evidence duly examined by this court, such as the witness H’s statement in the third protocol of trial, the witness I’s statement in the fifth protocol of trial, and the witness G’s legal statement, the Defendant delegated G with regard to the change of the contract of the trading company.