At around 11:00 on December 2, 2019, the Defendant, at the office of the Mapo-gu Seoul Mapo-gu Seoul District Office, had a director-general D, district E, F, G, general affairs G, and a large number of learning site teachers working for the said Mapo-gu branch office, “Isn't have to be able to do so, so that women do not have to be able to do so,” and the victim reported to the police, “Isn't have to do so,” and “Isn't have to do so,” and “Isn't have to do so,” and “Isn't have to do so, Isn't have to do so,” and “Isn't have to do so, Isn't have to do so to her husband inside the building,” and damaged the victim’s reputation by openly pointing out the fact publicly.

Summary of Evidence

1. Application of the Acts and subordinate statutes to the defendant's legal statement H and G;

1. A fine of KRW 1,00,000 for a suspended sentence under Article 307(1) of the Criminal Act, which is applicable to a crime;

1. Articles 70(1) and 69(2) of the Criminal Act (100,000 won a day);

1. The reason for sentencing under Article 59(1) of the Criminal Code of the Suspension of Sentence is that the Defendant’s remarks in the victim’s workplace as stated in its holding would cause considerable damage to the victim’s social reputation.

However, the circumstances leading to the defendant's crime can be considered.

The victim did not appear to have any particular reaction with I even though he received the message, etc. that he would be hedgingd from the Defendant before the instant case. While the legal relationship between the Defendant and I was maintained, I was able to take responsibility solely for the aggravation of marital relationship with the Defendant, and demanded a divorce, and did not pay the basic living allowance for the Defendant and two children. Thus, the Defendant cannot be held liable for the crime of this case.

The defendant shall act in the course of investigation.