However, the execution of the above punishment shall be suspended for two years from the date this judgment becomes final and conclusive.

From July 2009 to August 2009, the Defendant: (a) had not embezzled the Defendant’s deposit at the second floor VIP office of the new bank D branch in Seo-gu, Seo-gu, Gwangju; (b) had no fact that the Victim E embezzled the Defendant’s deposit; (c) had the victim’s customer and employees hear, and at the same time, had damaged the victim’s reputation by openly pointing out false facts and spread false facts, thereby hindering the victim’s banking business operations.

In addition, from around that time until November 8, 2011, the Defendant damaged the reputation of the victim by openly pointing out false facts through the aforementioned method, and spread false facts, thereby hindering the victim’s banking business operations.

Summary of Evidence

1. Partial statement of the defendant;

1. Application of the respective statutory statements of E, F, G, H, I, and J

1. Relevant statutory provisions of Article 307(2) of the Criminal Act (a point of defamation), Article 314(1) of the Criminal Act, Article 313 of the Criminal Act (a point of interference with business), the choice of imprisonment with prison labor, respectively;

1. Of concurrent crimes, the former part of Article 37, Articles 38 (1) 2 and 50 of the Criminal Act;

1. Article 62 (1) of the Criminal Act on the Suspension of Execution (The court shall consider the fact that the defendant denies the crime of this case, but the defendant has no criminal record of imprisonment or heavier, and that the defendant is aged);

1. Probation under Article 62-2 of the Criminal Act;

1. The Defendant asserts that the illegality of the Defendant’s claim as to the grounds for denying illegality is excluded and not guilty, since the “act that does not violate the social rules” under Article 20 of the Criminal Act regarding the Nos. 3, 5, and 6 of the annexed crime list among the charged facts in the instant case. However, in light of the evidence submitted by the Defendant in this court, the Defendant’s assertion is rejected insofar as it is difficult to deem that the victim E embezzled the Defendant’