Where the defendant fails to pay the above fine, one million won shall be the one day.

1. On September 2016, the Defendant’s defamation around early September 2016, and the fact that the Defendant had not provided joint and several surety for the Defendant’s obligation to the victim B. However, the Defendant’s phone called to the Defendant C, who is the seat of the Defendant, saying, “The Defendant got off to the Southern Police Station instead of paying the victim’s debt due to erroneous payment of the victim’s debt, thereby impairing the victim’s reputation by openly pointing out false facts.”

2. On October 26, 2016, the Defendant’s defamation around October 26, 2016: (a) the Defendant did not lend KRW 50 million to the victim and did not receive the refund; (b) the Defendant’s phone called to D, who is the Defendant’s seat, to the effect that the Defendant lent money to others, rather than having the Defendant lent money from the victim, even though the victim did not repay KRW 10 million to the Defendant’s money.

The phrase “in other words,” thereby impairing the reputation of the victim by openly pointing out false facts.

Summary of Evidence

1. A protocol concerning the examination of the police officers of the accused;

1. Each police statement made with respect to B, E, and F;

1. In the case of a criminal investigation report (the receipt of a factual confirmation), investigation report (the new receipt of a factual confirmation), investigation report (C telephone statement hearing), and investigation report [the Defendant only made a statement to C and D to the effect that “A and D “A have inflicted damage upon her birth (G)” and there was no examination report on the victim.” The Defendant asserted that “C and D did not have any interview with the victim.” The facts acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and investigated by this court were called “C and the Defendant was called to the Defendant on the beginning of September 2016.” At the time, the Defendant was called to the police station instead of B by a wrong letter of distribution.

There was a word to the effect that “the lending of money is different from one another.”

The Defendant stated that he believed the Defendant’s horse and lent 4 million won to the Defendant, and ② D (F after the name of the Defendant) also calls the Defendant around October 2016, and the Defendant “B.”