However, the execution of the above punishment shall be suspended for one year from the date this judgment becomes final and conclusive.

(e).

1. On April 21, 2009, the Defendant was a person who resided in the Seocho-si C Apartment and brought about a dispute with D on April 21, 2009 due to the use of the common sense of the above apartment, and D threatened the Defendant with the Ho-si gas gas sprayers.

Accordingly, while filing a lawsuit against D to seek damages, the defendant had the mind to bring an action against E and the resident F, who is the president of the above apartment complex, with no appraisal due to the operational problems of the Senior Citizens' Association, etc.

On August 21, 2009, the Defendant filed a lawsuit against Chuncheon District Court Branch D, E, and F to the effect that “E and F have instigated D to threaten himself/herself, thereby seeking damages of KRW 3.5 million.”

However, there was no fact that E/F had instigated D to threaten Defendant to threaten Defendant.

Therefore, although the defendant had attempted to acquire money from the victim E and F by deceiving the competent court and obtaining favorable judgment, the victims did not have committed an attempted crime because they were sentenced to the dismissal of the defendant's claim by actively responding to the case.

2. Defamation point

A. On April 28, 2010, the Defendant, at the above apartment management office, delivered a written request to the head of the above apartment management office to the effect that “AC Apartments Association’s representative meeting, members, and the head of the management office, who received subsidies from the Si/Gun/Gu, did not have any payment of fuel expenses on a one-time basis due to delayed payment of fuel expenses from August 2004 to May 2008, the Defendant was subject to compulsory collection of fuel expenses on May 2008.”

However, during the above period, there was a fact that the fuel cost of the above apartment association was paid, and there was no fact that the members of the elderly association arbitrarily embezzled the subsidy.

As a result, the defendant presents false facts.