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

1. Interference with business;

A. The Defendant, who works as an employee of D Company, from January 2008 to February 2, 2008, used excessive business promotion expenses to some of the occupants in Gangnam-gu Seoul, the victim F, the head of the management group, used excessive business promotion expenses, and ordered the occupants to demand a temporary management assembly on February 24, 2008, the head of the management group to replace the head of the management group.

As a result, the defendant spreads false facts, thereby hindering the legitimate management of the victim as the head of the management group.

B. On May 17, 2008, the Defendant interfered with the legitimate management of the victim as the head of the management group by force, such as by forcing the victim to take the minutes being prepared, when the above victim legitimately convened and proceeded with the management body meeting.

2. The Defendant, around February 24, 2008, damaged the reputation of the said victim by openly pointing out false facts, stating that “low females are not the head of the management body that has been duly appointed, and embezzled business promotion expenses,” against the occupants attending the above temporary management assembly at the place where the said temporary management assembly was held.”

Summary of Evidence

1. Defendant's legal statement;

1. Legal statement of witness G;

1. Statements made by witnesses H, F, and I in the sixth trial records;

1. Statement made by the witness J in the seventh trial records;

1. Application of the police protocol of statement to F;

1. Article 314 (1) and Article 307 (2) of the Criminal Act concerning the facts constituting an offense;

1. Selection of each alternative fine for punishment;

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. As to the Defendant’s assertion of defamation under Article 334(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act, the Defendant asserted illegality as to defamation under Article 310 of the Criminal Act. However, the Defendant’s assertion was proved by the evidence as seen earlier, and the Defendant’s assertion was false at the time.