The Defendant is a person living together with C from July 2014.

1. On March 23, 2016, the Defendant: (a) around 2016, the victim E in E, an employee, in the Fluxation Plux, G, H, and in favor of his/her employees, has “E C and winded.”

E The term “Saeari” damaged the reputation of the victim by openly pointing out facts.

2. On March 23, 2016, the Defendant: (a) posted a phone call to I, stating “E and C have the wind,” thereby impairing the honor of the victim by openly pointing out facts.

3. On March 2016, the Defendant: (a) called “E and C had the wind” by telephone to J around March 2016.

The victim’s reputation was damaged by publicly alleging the fact by stating that he was killed in Ischeon.

Summary of Evidence

1. Partial statement of the defendant;

1. Each legal statement of E, I, H, J and G;

1. The K's statement;

1. Application of the Acts and subordinate statutes to the complaint;

1. Relevant Article 307 (1) of the Criminal Act concerning the facts constituting an offense and Article 307 (1) of the Criminal Act concerning the selection of punishment;

1. In light of the first sentence of Article 37, Article 38(1)2, and Article 50 of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment of Concurrent Crimes in light of the circumstances where the defendant had no record of being subject to punishment heavier than that of the same kind of crime or fine, and the witness’s statement, etc., even though it appears clear that the defendant used the same end as the crime, there is no form to deny the crime and reflect it. Even if the defendant's speech was true, there was considerable pain on the victim. Thus, even if the defendant's speech was true, the sentence like the above order is imposed by taking account of the unfavorable circumstances such as the fact that the defendant could not actually have been punished.