Where the defendant does not pay the above fine, 100,000 won shall be one day.

1. 피고인은 2016. 11. 5. 12:00 경 아산시에 있는 C 예식장에서 같은 마을 주민인 D에게 “E이랑 F이 같이 우리 집 볏단을 훔쳐 갔다, 도둑놈이다 ”라고 말함으로써 공연히 사실을 적시하여 피해자 E, 피해자 F의 명예를 각각 훼손하였다.

2. 피고인은 2016. 11. 5. 15:00 경 충남 예산군 G 마을회관 앞에서, 같은 마을 주민 5, 6명이 듣고 있는 가운데 피해자 F에게 “ 볏단을 훔쳐 간 도둑년” 이라고 소리침으로써 공연히 사실을 적시하여 피해자의 명예를 훼손하였다.

Summary of Evidence

1. Legal statement of the witness H;

1. Statement made by witnesses D, F, and E in the second public trial records;

1. The second police statement protocol on D (the defendant and his defense counsel only delivered the facts to D that he would give an arbitration at the wedding hall, but did not cause defamation and did not have intention, and did not take a bath by pointing out facts before the community hall.

The argument is asserted.

According to the consistent statements in investigation agencies and courts of D and victim F, the facts charged are sufficiently recognized, and D merely intended to have a fluench with the Defendant to have a fluench with the Defendant, and it did not seem to have talked on the premise that D was conducting arbitration in a wedding place at the time when the Defendant made the same speech as the facts charged.

The above argument is without merit in the application of the law

1. Article 307 (1) of the Criminal Act concerning the facts constituting an offense;

1. Articles 40 and 50 of the Criminal Act of the Commercial Competition;

1. Selection of each alternative fine for punishment;

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

1. Article 70(1) and Article 69(2) of the Criminal Act to attract a workhouse;

1. Article 334 (1) of the Criminal Procedure Act concerning the order of provisional payment;