When the defendant does not pay the above fine, 100,000 won.

1. On January 2015, the Defendant defamationd the victim’s reputation by publicly pointing out facts by publicly stating that “the victim F was unable to have a wind with G and come to end,” at the D Training Institute office located in Chungcheongnam-si, Chungcheongnam-si, Chungcheongnam-si, and by publicly pointing out the fact to the Defendant’s relatives, including E.

[Defendant and defense counsel asserts that the facts alleged by Defendant merely constitute a relationship between the victim and G, and thus, such remarks do not constitute the element of defamation. However, the facts alleged by Defendant are sufficient facts to lower the victim’s social value or evaluation since the victim had a relationship separate from G that was a relationship with the Defendant, which was a relationship with the Defendant. As such, the facts alleged by Defendant are deemed sufficient facts to lower the victim’s social value or evaluation (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 98Do3150, Sept. 3, 1999; Supreme Court Decision 98Do3150, Apr. 8, 2015; 200: (a) on April 20:16, 2015; (b) the insult Defendant sent a smartphone message to the victim F on a multiple occasions at the same place as indicated in paragraph (1) of the same Article, but the victim did not take care of the victim’s smartphone, thereby raising the victim’s “no more than 10 years ago.”

Summary of Evidence

1. A statement to the effect that the defendant made the same statement as the statement set forth in Paragraph 1. of the ruling in this Court and posted the same article as the statement set forth in Paragraph 2.

1. Statement made by the police of the F;

1. Application of F’s authentic statutes;

1. Relevant Article 307(1) of the Criminal Act concerning the facts constituting an offense, and Article 307(1) of the Criminal Act selecting a penalty (e.g., defamation and fine) and Article 311 of the Criminal Act;

1. Article 37 of the Criminal Code among concurrent crimes.