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

The defendant is the owner of a building with the frequency of "E" operated by the victim D in Busan Dong-gu C.

On June 20, 2015, at the office of the defendant in the Dong-gu Busan Metropolitan City FF building, the defendant refers to G as a customer of the above victim's frequency. The defendant's cell phone of the above G refers to the above victim's cell phone with his own cell phone. The defendant took funeral services without paying the deposit money to the owner of the building even at the time when he performs funeral services in the previous H, and instead did not pay the deposit money to the owner of the building, and then the defendant lost the lawsuit and received the money to the head of the Dong-gu's office to receive the death insurance money of the relative-dong traffic accident, and thereby the defendant was charged with the crime of habitual fraud. In addition, H building is scheduled to file a criminal charge with the Busan Busan Jin Police Station as an additional habitual fraud.

“Delivery of the text message”

The honor of the victim was damaged by openly pointing out facts.

Summary of Evidence

1. Partial statement of the defendant;

1. Part concerning the statement made D in the protocol of interrogation of the suspect against the defendant by the prosecution

1. Statement made by the police against D;

1. Investigation report (person G telephone conversations with him);

1. A copy of a text message;

1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes, such as judgment of each Busan District Court, real estate lease contract, confirmation of the authenticity of a private document, additional evidence of habitual plan fraud in preparation of victims, etc.;

1. Relevant Article 307 (1) of the Criminal Act concerning criminal facts, the choice of punishment, and the selection of fines;

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/her defense counsel under Article 334(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act

1. The defendant and his defense counsel did not have the intention of defamation merely because the defendant sent G any text message as stated in the facts charged to G to the defendant's position.

The argument is asserted.

However, according to the evidence adopted earlier, the contents of the text message sent by the Defendant to G are stated as facts.