If the defendant fails to pay the above fine, 50,000 won shall be one day.

The Defendant was a vice-chairperson in the Daegu North-gu C Apartment occupant representative.

1. Defamation;

A. On April 3, 2013, the Defendant committed the crime of April 3, 2013, and the apartment management office at the above apartment management office did not confirm the corruption, thereby impairing the honor of the victim D by openly pointing out false facts and impairing the reputation of the victim, by stating, “A person who was replaced by the elevator floor or who was engaged in a gardening cell at the seat of the head of the management office and the employees.”

B. On May 21, 2013, the Defendant committed the crime of May 201, 2013, at the above C Apartment Management Office, “I am the president. I am the president. I am the same as the president. The president and multiple representatives present the number of bidders. The chairman decided the number of bidders, decided the number of bidders in consultation with the president, and decided the president’s number of bidders, and decided the president’s number in consultation with the president. There are many problems in the German processing, the president, the president’s president, the five chairman, without consultation with the president. (Wom, false speaking, false speaking, reading), the liquor tax portion (the president) issued a letter of approval for the withdrawal of the president, and the same representative’s portion (the president) made one copy of the same meeting on April 21, 2013, and made up one copy of the contents of the said meeting, and damaged the victim’s reputation by openly pointing out the false fact to the head of the relevant office of management of the apartment and six representative.

2. On June 24, 2012, around 06:30 on June 24, 2012, the Defendant interfered with the business, following the resolution of the head of the central guard office of the above apartment building to determine apartment painting determined at the resident representative meeting by reflecting the resident’s consent in the following month, the Defendant interfered with the business of obtaining the consent of the head of the management office by force by informing three persons, such as the head of the guard team, etc., of the fact that “it is not possible to give written consent, but if it is not immediately suspended, it will bring an accusation against the violation of the Election Act.”

Summary of Evidence

1..