If the defendant does not pay the above fine, KRW 100,000.

On December 16, 2016, the Defendant: (a) had a large number of people outside of the jurisdiction of the Jeonju District Court No. 7 of Jeonju District Court, and in fact, (b) the victim B did not demand money or goods to the president of the C agency; or (c) did not pay the money to the principal of the C agency, and (d) the Defendant

The Korean agency president had access to the money and demanded money and paid-in money, which is known to the full-time payment of money.

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

Summary of Evidence

1. Partial statement of the defendant;

1. Each legal statement of witness B, D, and E;

1. The defendant and his defense counsel asserted that the defendant and his defense counsel did not make a statement to the purport stated in the judgment of the defendant, but made a statement to D. However, the following circumstances acknowledged in accordance with the aforementioned evidence duly adopted and investigated by this court, i.e., the victim, from the first investigative agency to the court, made a false statement at the time of the defendant's initial statement from the court to the court of law.

들은 어 땠는데 ’라고 하며 판시 기재와 같이 말을 하기에 피고인과 언쟁을 하였다고

It is reasonable in light of the empirical rule to explain the circumstances and the contents of the statement, and the witness D also was wraped by the victim and the defendant, but there was a big distance, and therefore, he did not hear the situation at his end.

The consistently stated that the Defendant’s statement does not seem to have been a situation where the Defendant told D, and the witness E also stated that “the situation where the Defendant and the victim talked with each other later than D was the situation where the Defendant and the victim talked with each other,” and that the Defendant’s statement in the interrogation of the suspect by the prosecution exceeds KRW 300 million between the victim and D when the victim and the victim talked with each other.”

Then, the purport that “the case was closed and talked” is the same.