If the defendant does not pay the above fine, 50,000 won.

Around 19:00 on October 27, 2010, the Defendant was paid KRW 300,000 as an “regular audit expense” to the victim F, the chairperson of the above apartment unit, who was the chairperson of the council of occupants’ representatives in Gyeyang-si, Yangsan-si, the Defendant, as the auditor of the above apartment unit on June 10, 2008, received KRW 30,000,000 as the “regular audit expense” on December 22, 2008, and KRW 30,000 as the “regular audit expense” on December 24, 2009. However, the Defendant publicly damaged the victim’s reputation by publicly stating that “The victim F, the chairperson of the council of occupants’ representatives, who was the chairperson of the council of occupants’ representatives, had paid the audit activity expenses that was not paid to the Defendant by the chairperson of the council of occupants’ representatives, and arbitrarily using the audit activity expenses.”

Summary of Evidence

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

1. The defendant's partial statement in the first protocol of trial;

1. Each police statement made to D, E, and H;

1. Investigation report (to listen to the G phone statement of a witness);

1. Investigation report (to hear the I telephone statement of a witness);

1. Investigation report (Attachment, such as details of the complainant's trading);

1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes concerning investigation reports (C Management Office Accounting and the hearing of statements by J);

1. Article 307 (2) of the Criminal Act applicable to the crimes;

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

1. Judgment on the Defendant’s assertion under Article 334(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act

1. The summary of the argument is that the Defendant received at the audit expense a total of KRW 200,000 won around December 2008 and KRW 500,000,000 from around December 2009. However, there is no less than KRW 300,000,000 for audit activity expenses around June 2008. As such, the Defendant’s horses related to F are true, and there was no intention that the Defendant would impair F’s reputation.

2. The evidence presented prior to the determination (in particular, the statement at G and H in this court and in the investigative agency) reveals that the defendant was paid.