At around 13:00 on August 16, 2013, the Defendant: “D” in the Defendant’s operation of the Defendant located in the Busan Annual Zone C, which operated the “G” in competition with himself, to F, the president of the E organization sub-council; “G” left back to the new wall of the opening of the opening of the opening of the business, which is set up on the four walls before the two months ago; and this witness also exists; and on that day, the members of the sub-council were sent from the place where the members of the sub-council are gathered.

Accordingly, the Defendant, by pointing out the above facts, damaged the honor of the victim H.

Summary of Evidence

1. Legal statement of witness F;

1. Statement of the police officer to I;

1. Application of the Acts and subordinate statutes for investigation reporting;

1. Relevant Article 307 (1) of the Criminal Act concerning criminal facts, the choice of a fine, and the choice of a fine;

1. Penalty fine of 300,000 won to be suspended;

1. Articles 70 and 69(2) of the Criminal Act (50,000 won per day) of the Criminal Act for the inducement of a workhouse;

1. The defendant and his defense counsel asserted that Article 59(1) of the Criminal Act (the defendant has no record of criminal punishment, the contents of this case, the circumstances leading to the crime, and all other circumstances that may serve as conditions for sentencing, such as the defendant's age, character and conduct, and environment) of the suspended sentence (the defendant and his defense counsel's assertion that the illegality should be excluded since such acts are true facts and solely for public interest in relation to the act stated in the crime

In order for an act that defames a person by openly pointing out facts to be subject to punishment due to the elimination of illegality in accordance with Article 310 of the Criminal Act, the perpetrator must prove that such act falls under a true fact and solely on the public interest.

(see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 95Do1473, Oct. 25, 1996). However, there is no evidence to deem that H, as indicated by the Defendant, was detached of the Defendant’s front seat, and such fact is true and public.