However, the execution of the above punishment shall be suspended for two years from the date this judgment becomes final and conclusive.

On November 26, 2014, the Defendant: (a) around 17:00, the fact in the D parking lot located in Gwangju Northern-gu, Gwangju, was known to the victim E, and received 30 million won from the visitors; (b) despite the fact that the Defendant received 30 million won from the visitors, the Defendant sent 30 million won out of 30 million won to E upon the request of employment by the persons who know E and deliver 30 million won to E; and (c) used 20 million won as the cost of repair.The Defendant stated that the Defendant was called “.”

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 E, F and G;

1. Partial statement of the police interrogation protocol of the accused;

1. Each police statement of E and F;

1. G statements;

1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes to each telephone recording CD or recording book;

1. Relevant Article 307 (2) of the Criminal Act concerning the facts constituting an offense and Article 307 (2) of the Election of Imprisonment;

1. Article 62 (1) of the Criminal Act;

1. Social service order under Article 62-2 of the Criminal Act;

1. The defendant and his defense counsel asserted that the defendant and his defense counsel did not have the possibility of spreading to an unspecified or many unspecified persons even if the defendant made a statement to the same effect as the facts charged of this case.

It is difficult to see that the F has a close relationship with the victim to the extent that it can be deemed that there is no possibility that the F can spread to many and unspecified persons, and in fact, G can sufficiently recognize the possibility of dissemination and performance even if the content of the Defendant’s statement is expressed from the Defendant.

Therefore, we cannot accept the above argument of the defendant and defense counsel.

The Defendant committed the instant crime on the grounds of sentencing, even though the victim’s social reputation was severely damaged due to the instant crime and the victim suffered serious mental distress.