When the defendant does not pay the above fine, 100,000 won.

The defendant is the chairperson of the F Apartment Women's Association in Busan Dong-gu L, and the victim E is a person who was in charge of the management of the fund of the Women's Association while working as the general director of the above apartment complex from August 4, 2009 to December 27, 2012.

1. On September 25, 2013, the Defendant posted a phone call to N of the same apartment residents in Busan Dong-gu M and 11 Dong-dong 1205, which is the Defendant’s house, on September 25, 2013, and stated to the effect that “E has been bad in view of her knowledge, embezzled 30 million won in women’s association, and is the fraud, the alteration, and the elderly.”

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

2. On December 4, 2013, around 22:10 on December 4, 2013, the Defendant told N to the effect that “E removed KRW 20 million from the place where it was recorded in paragraph 1, and thus, caused a fine of KRW 2 million to be imposed.” The year stated to the effect that “E is a false weekend, a fraudulent and bad one, and a bad one who has become an absolute one.”

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

Summary of Evidence

1. Each legal statement of witness E, N, andO;

1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes to a criminal investigation report (report on verification of cases of occupational embezzlement to a complainant);

1. Article 307 (1) of the Criminal Act and Article 307 (1) of the same Act concerning the applicable criminal facts, the selection of fines;

1. Of concurrent crimes, the former part of Article 37, Articles 38 (1) 2 and 50 of the Criminal Act;

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

1. The defense counsel's assertion of the defense counsel under Article 334 (1) of the Criminal Procedure Act asserts that the defendant's act is for the public interest. Thus, according to the evidence of this case, the defendant, despite the fact that the defendant could inform the occupant of the victim's act through other lawful means for the benefit of the whole occupant of the apartment, made the statement individually by phone to N who has a relationship with the victim, and in light of such expression, the defendant.