The Defendants did not pay each of the above fines.

1. Defendant A: (a) around 15:00 on August 7, 2014, the fact that Defendant A was in Pyeongtaek-si D means that, despite the fact that the victim F did not have stolen the goods from another elderly situation, Defendant A was able to do so at the elderly’s place where the victim F was able to hear, Defendant A’s 10 people, and she was f away from the elderly’s place where the victim F was her lives.

Accordingly, the defendant has damaged the reputation of the victim by openly pointing out false facts.

2. Defendant B said, at the time and place indicated in paragraph 1, Defendant B said that “F was flady by Domine, and f was driven by another senior citizens, as Domine, at the place where more than 10 residents are heard.”

Accordingly, the defendant has damaged the reputation of the victim by openly pointing out false facts.

Summary of Evidence

1. Each legal statement of witness F, G and H;

1. Each legal statement of I, J and K;

1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes on police statements to F, G, and J;

1. Article 307 (2) of the Criminal Act applicable to the facts constituting a crime;

1. Selection of a fine for negligence;

1. Articles 70 (1) and 69 (2) of the Criminal Act for detention in a workhouse;

1. Article 334 (1) of the Criminal Procedure Act, each of the orders for provisional payment;