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

The Defendant, at around 17:00 on March 21, 2014, at the Victim C’s House located in Chungcheongnam-si, Chungcheongnam-si, 2014, did not have a sexual relationship with another man. However, despite the fact that the victim had a sexual relationship with the other man, the Defendant has to have a 10th anniversary of the fact that the 10 people, who had been sculed,

D In operating D, young chronism and the aging and chronty who were the impule, thereby undermining the honor of the victim by openly pointing out false facts.

Summary of Evidence

1. Each legal statement of witness C and E;

1. Application of the law of the police statement protocol to F;

1. Article 307 (2) of the Criminal Act applicable to the relevant criminal facts and Article 307 (2) of the Selection of Punishment;

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

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

1. The defendant and his defense counsel asserts that there was no such statement as stated in the facts constituting the crime.

However, E consistently stated the facts constituting the crime in the judgment of the Defendant from the police to this Court.

The credibility of the above statement can be acknowledged because E is not able to discover the motive to make a false statement in order to identify the defendant, and the attitude of the statement is very strong, and E is not possible to find out the motive of the false statement.

F makes a statement to the same effect as E in the police, and in this Court, “the defendant has been in the custody of the court.”

It is only the F's opinion that the words of the same purport as the facts stated in the G's criminal facts.

“The statements are made”.

The F's statement in the court of law is inconsistent with the statement in the police, and the F has a good appraisal that the relationship with the victim becomes worse after the investigation by the police.

Since the F makes a statement by himself, it is difficult to believe the F's statement in the court as it is, and the F's statement was made by the police immediately after the occurrence of the case, and it is more consistent with E's statement.