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

At around 11:00 on July 19, 2012, the Defendant damaged the victim’s reputation by openly pointing out the fact that “I am, I am, I am, I am, I am, I am, I am, I am, I am, I am, I am, I am, I am, I am, I am, I am, I am, I am, I am, I am, I am, I am, I am, I am, I am, I am, I am, I am, I am, I am.”

Summary of Evidence

1. Partial statement of the defendant;

1. Legal statement of witness E;

1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes to each fact-finding certificate (not 7 through 10 pages of investigation records);

1. Relevant provisions of the Criminal Act and Article 307 (1) of the Criminal Act concerning the choice of punishment;

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

1. As to the defense counsel's assertion of the provisional payment order under Article 334 (1) of the Criminal Procedure Act, the defense counsel asserts that the defendant's remarks such as the statement of facts constituting the crime was aimed at informing the members of the clan of the misconduct of the victims of the clan, and that the defendant's act for the public interest does not constitute a crime because the illegality is excluded as an act for the sake of public interest.

In light of the above evidence, it is reasonable to view that the Defendant’s horses were false, and if the Defendant did not verify the authenticity of the horses, and instead accepted the horses voluntarily from F and believed the truth, it is difficult to deem that there was a considerable reason to believe that the contents of the horses were true.

Therefore, defense counsel's assertion is without merit.