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

On June 1, 2018, the Defendant submitted a written complaint to the public service center of the Suwon Police Station, which is located in Suwon-si, Seowon-ro, 1673, to the effect that “A, who was sent to the candidate for the 2nd unit of the Dong-dong apartment C in April 2018 and was elected to the Dong representative in May 2018, Defendant D, who was the Defendant, distributed printed matters that distorted the fact for the purpose of slandering on the election day, to the mail of apartment residents, thereby openly impairing the reputation of the complainant, and on the same day, D’A was a candidate for the above printed matters to the police officer in charge of the investigation and investigation of the police station on the same day.

There is no possibility that A candidate, who is the age of 28 years of age, will be the head of a branch office in Pyeongtaek.

It is highly likely that the social career will be entered.

“The fact,” however, was stated as “the head of F Insurance Field Branch on February 10, 2010, the Defendant served as the F Insurance Field Branch, and accordingly, the Defendant made a statement to the effect that D would be punished as defamation because the content stated in the above printed materials is false.

However, there is no fact that the defendant had worked as a branch office in F insurance set forth in F insurance set, so D had a fact that the defendant stated the above printed matters about the defendant, and the above accusation was false.

Accordingly, the defendant reported false facts to public offices for the purpose of having D receive criminal punishment, and filed a false complaint against D.

Summary of Evidence

1. Partial statement of the defendant;

1. Statement made to D by the police;

1. The perusal of documents pertaining to the case of defamation complaint, copy of certificate of career, copy of certificate of dismissal, certificate of dismissal, investigation report (the result of confirmation of the relative facts of the G related persons), the Defendant actually served as the head of a branch office, and was not a head of a branch office in practice, and thus, the Defendant cannot

Even if there was no perception about falsity, it is argued that there was no perception about falsity.

(b).