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

【Criminal Power】 On February 7, 2017, the Defendant was sentenced to two years of suspension of the execution of ten months of imprisonment with prison labor for an injury at the Incheon District Court, and the judgment became final and conclusive on September 16, 2017.

Since there is no disadvantage to the defendant's defense, the confirmation of the above judgment (refer to the output of the results of the search of the Konet case which is bound to the trial records) ex officio without any changes in the indictment is recognized as a criminal offense in the latter part of Article 37

【Criminal Facts of Crimes at the Residents’ Meeting held in front of the Seo-gu Incheon Seo-gu Incheon, on June 23, 2017, the Defendant damaged the reputation of the victim by openly pointing out false facts by openly pointing out false facts, in spite of the absence of the fact that the victim C embezzled public funds, there is about 10 residents, such as D, who are hearing about the victim.

Summary of Evidence

1. In the third trial record of witness E’s statement, the police interrogation record of the suspect interrogation protocol case certificate of the witness C, F, and D, the investigation report of the non-prosecution decision (Attachment to C data submitted by the complainant), and the investigation report of the person in charge of H [the currency with the person in charge of H] of the previous trial records: Each of the court records (in the trial records, reference materials submitted by the victim’s attorney-at-law on February 11, 2020), the defendant and the defense counsel denies the charges to the effect that the defendant did not have any fact at the resident’s general meeting of this case.

However, the witnesses stated to the effect that the Defendant attended the residents’ general meeting and embezzled public funds by the victim. Accordingly, the Defendant’s spouse entered the Defendant’s office and stated to the effect that he was the Defendant, and in particular, the witness E did not have any special interest in addition to residing in the apartment, such as the Defendant or the victim, and there is no reason to give testimony unfavorable to the Defendant even if he was aware of the burden of perjury.