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

The defendant is a person who operates a DNA set on the first floor of the C hotel building in Si interest city B, and the victim E and F is a person who operates the above C hotel.

1. On February 2, 2012, the Defendant openly insulting victims by stating that “The Defendant was aware that real estate intermediaries and hotel side did not permit the change of the purpose of use” to G operating the said mobile phone molet store prior to the aforementioned DNA set-line store operated by the Defendant, the Defendant entered into a false contract with one another, even though he/she did not permit the change of the purpose of use.”

2. On March 2012, 2012, the Defendant insultingd the victims publicly by stating that “A person operating the said siren office is the victim E and the victim F, who did not obtain permission for change of the purpose of use, was subject to fraud by leasing a place where the said siren office was not permitted. It is the president or the son’s multiple fraud.”

Summary of Evidence

1. Defendant's legal statement;

1. Each police statement made to E, G, and I;

1. Each written confirmation of G and I;

1. Application of the Acts and subordinate statutes to the complaint;

1. Article 311 of the Criminal Act and Article 311 of the same Act concerning criminal facts and the choice of fines;

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