When the defendant does not pay the above fine, 100,000 won.

1. On October 28, 2013, the Defendant: “F,” operated by the victim E in the second floor of the building C in Sungnam-gu, Sungnam-gu, Sungnam-si, the Defendant returned the husband’s death insurance money and the transferred money. G promptly repays as determined by the judgment of the law. While the snow was discharged, it was difficult to do so for more than two years, and there was no other imprising rules on this place. It is difficult to bring about the death insurance money that he intends to go through as his family. G brought about to the death insurance money that he tried to go through as his family. It is said that how we can see how we have written. It was damaged the honor of the victim by openly pointing out the fact in the front and rear of the Defendant.

2. On November 12, 2013, the Defendant: (a) around 09:00, at the time of Suwon-si, Suwon-si, a Sinwon-si I building 8706, and (b) around the common co-stigious book, the Defendant damaged the victim’s reputation by openly stating the fact that “The husband’s death insurance premium return return to the husband, 8706 G couple No. 1201, 1201,”

Summary of Evidence

1. Partial statement of the defendant;

1. Statement to E by the police;

1. Application of each statute on photographs;

1. Article 307 (1) of the Criminal Act and Article 307 (1) of the same Act concerning the applicable criminal facts, the selection of fines;

1. Of concurrent crimes, the former part of Article 37, Articles 38 (1) 2 and 50 of the Criminal Act;

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

1. At the time of the instant case, the Defendant and his defense counsel asserted the assertion of the Defendant under Article 334(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act, and his defense counsel, arguing that at the time of the instant case, the Defendant did not still receive 3.9 million won out of the amount of 5.5 million won that the Defendant lent to H through his wife G, and that the Defendant’s husband’s provision of the above loans included the Defendant’s husband’s death insurance money and the amount of father, and that there was no intention of defamation.

According to the above evidence, we examine the above evidence.