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

피고인은 2009. 8. 말경 울산 남구 C에 있는 D 출입문 앞에서 사실은 피해자 E가 통장과 도장을 훔쳐서 돈을 빼간 사실이 없음에도 불구하고 동네 주민들인 F, G, H이 듣는 가운데 피해자에게 '내돈 7,000만원을 훔쳐간 년이 여기 있네, 이 도둑년아, 내가 병원에 입원해 있을 때 니가 병원에 와서 내 좃을 만져서 내 정신을 혼미하게 만들고, 베개 밑에 있던 내 통장과 도장을 훔쳐가서 돈을 빼가지 않았냐' 라고 말을 함으로써 공연히 허위사실을 적시하여 피해자의 명예를 훼손하였다.

Summary of Evidence

1. Each legal statement of witness E, F, G, and H;

1. Each police statement of E and F;

1. F Fact-finding certificate (Evidence of 84 pages);

1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes to a defense counsel's opinion (Evidence No. 1211)

1. Article 307 (2) of the Criminal Act applicable to the relevant criminal facts, Article 307 (2) of the Criminal Act selection of punishment,

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

1. The defendant and his defense counsel asserted that the defendant and his defense counsel did not have the location D located in Ulsan-gu C around August 2009, the date and time when the facts constituting the crime were recorded, and the victim gathers himself by allowing his son to make a false statement.

The instant crime was committed on the part of the victim who filed a complaint against the Defendant on 2013 and defamation and was under investigation and prosecuted (a non-prosecution decision was rendered with respect to the charge of non-prosecution disposition). As the date of examination of the witness in this court was about five years prior to the date of the examination of the witness in this court, and about four years prior to the date of the complaint and investigation, it is not natural that the statements made by several persons are accurately consistent with the specific circumstances at that time, and that the statements made by the assent continued to be maintained. Thus, the witness’s statements on the detailed circumstances are inconsistent or the same witness’s statements are the same.