Where the defendant fails to pay the above fine, one hundred thousand won shall be one day.

On December 15, 2011, the Defendant invested one billion won in real estate business through the victim B, who is in charge of real estate investment advisory business, and suffered losses, and the Defendant demanded the said victim to compensate for damages, and had the mind to conduct a single-person demonstration.

around 12:00 on May 11, 2016, the Defendant conducted a demonstration on the top of the entrance of the Gangnam-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government building, stating that “D representative: (a) 50 persons, present at the real estate-related seminars carried out by the victim, were allowed to be seen by the victims; (b) the Defendant’s body, instead of the D: B and 1 billion won land sale fraud, loan loan agreement, 1 billion won, caused damage B and 32 billion won, which was caused by the false preparation of the Scro contract, in lieu of the Scro contract; and (c) 1 billion won, lost 32 years in total; and (d) the Defendant complained of the same victim as above.”

6. 1.1. Around 12:00, each of the above places used diskettes with the above contents and sounded 50 or more of the participants of seminars as follows: “I need not go against the same victim. I will not attend the seminars. I will read the diskettes and read it. I will belong to.”

In addition, on May 23, 2016, at the entrance of the parking lot of the 'SBS CNBC' broadcasting station located in Mapo-ro, Mapo-gu, Seoul, where the above victim visited the above victim to contribute a broadcast program on May 23, 2016, the Defendant conducted demonstration by putting the above inket so that many unspecified persons can be seen.

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

Summary of Evidence

1. Partial statement of the defendant;

1. A complaint;

1. The police statement concerning B;

1. Application of the Acts and subordinate statutes to photographs of diskettes;

1. Article 307 (1) of the Criminal Act and the choice of a fine concerning the crime;

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

1. Although the defendant's demonstration on the defendant's assertion of Article 334 (1) of the Criminal Procedure Act is a legitimate act, the defendant's above act is justified.