If the defendant does not pay the above fine, 50,000 won shall be paid.

From January 1, 2012 to the date, the Defendant was a person working as the 7th chairperson of the Seo-gu Seo-gu Seoul apartment unit. The victim D is the 6th representative of the above C apartment unit from November 24, 2010 to December 30, 201, and the 7th representative of the above apartment unit from January 1, 201 to the date.

1. On March 29, 2012, the Defendant: (a) posted documents at the coffee shop on the 16:20th of the building of the above apartment; and (b) stated to the effect that “D was doing so; and (c) “D was doing so; and (d) why it was dissatis, it was dissatis,” the instant apartment 7 representative, E, resident F, etc.

However, D did not commit an illegal act.

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

2. The defendant has committed the same harm;

5. At around 21:00, around 21:200, at the second G cafeteria near the above apartment, there are 20 female members, including H, around September 201, in which there are 20 female members of the above apartment complex: (a) in October 201, D collected money to the extent of KRW 260-2.7 million without any ground.

'' speaks in common.

However, D did not commit an illegal act.

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

Summary of Evidence

1. Entry of the accused in part of each protocol of the first to third trial; and

1. Legal statement of witness E;

1. Partial statement of the witness H in the court;

1. Each statement of witness D, I, J, K, L, M, and N in the 9th trial records;

1. Each statement in E, K, N, and M;

1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes (No. 2012 type No. 10927 of the Daegu District Office);

1. Relevant provisions of the Criminal Act and Article 307 (2) of the Criminal Act concerning the selection of penalties;

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

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

1. Judgment on the assertion by the defendant and his/her defense counsel under Article 334(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act

1. The Defendant alleged that D, as indicated in the facts charged, has the quality of the design.