If the defendant does not pay the above fine, the amount of KRW 100,000 shall be paid.

1. On January 12, 2016, the Defendant: “D (E) management personnel dismissal of the management personnel of the D (E) on the victim D in the C commercial building located in the Suwon-si, Suwon-si;

Grounds

(a) Business negligence: Accounting of management expenses;

(b) Business abandonment: Implence in the site for public use;

(c) A balance of business: To participate in the case of accusation filed by another person (the negligence in addition to business);

(a)explience for an underground expansion;

B. The name of the victim was damaged by distributing the former land named "No. 3 (hereinafter, omitted)" to the F, etc. who is the resident of the commercial building and publicly indicating the fact.

2. The Defendant rendered judgment on August 13, 2016 at the foregoing commercial building (D - The judgment on his/her losses).

9. 8. Along with this outline, a person who is not allowed to submit a written confirmation of facts (hereinafter, omitted) other than the “written confirmation of facts” was distributed to F, etc. who is a resident of a commercial building and damaged the victim’s reputation by openly pointing out facts.

Summary of Evidence

1. Statement by the defendant in court;

1. Written statements made by the police and the prosecution with regard to D;

1. Each police statement made with respect to G and H;

1. Documents, etc. written by the accused (the investigation records, 61, 65 pages);

1. Each investigation report below 411 p, 646p, 678p, 922p (written submission of evidence, telephone investigation, G, and F statement hearing) / [The defendant cannot exercise jurisdiction over the complainant's monthly act, etc. so that he can only f, who is the president of the business center, for the protection of the rights of the tenant's occupant, can be seen as inducements for the protection of the rights of the tenant. This asserts that the illegality is dismissed since it is an act for the public interest.

However, according to the aforementioned evidence, the Defendant requested the complainant from around 2014 to dismiss him due to business negligence, etc., and continues to repeat the act of criminal appeal and distribution of printed matter. In addition, in light of the expression and contents of the instant printed matter, even though the timely contents cannot be deemed as a hostile error of the complainant or did not reveal the fact of manipulating the confirmation document, the Defendant stated the timely contents in a decent distorted manner for the purpose of criticism of the Defendant, and it later distorted it.