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

On August 30, 2011, the Defendant attended 200 persons, such as the Dong representative, apartment management office staff, residents, etc., at the Dong-gu Incheon Metropolitan City C Apartment Complex 9 Community Council room, and stated that “I have a strong interest in the selection of the Vitice Center. The Dong representative 905 Dong representative is a strong interest.”

However, in fact, the victim D, the same representative, did not receive money or give any preferential treatment in the selection of the Flaice Center.

Accordingly, the defendant has damaged the reputation of the victim D by openly pointing out false facts.

Summary of Evidence

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

1. Each legal statement of witness D, E, and F;

1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes of each protocol of police statement concerning D;

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

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

1. The defendant and his defense counsel's assertion of the provisional payment order against the defendant and his defense counsel under Article 334 (1) of the Criminal Procedure Act asserts that since the defendant made an intentional statement in the facts charged to inform the occupants of the fact that there is a serious procedural problem in relation to the selection of controlled entities of the Banini center, there was no intention to impair the honor of the victim, and that the above act is not illegal solely for the public interest.

Considering the fact that many unspecified persons could hear the above remarks by the residents' conference room where the defendant made the above remarks, it cannot be said that there was no intention of defamation on the defendant's above remarks.

In addition, according to the above evidence, it is recognized that the defendant made the above statement without specific confirmation of facts on the basis of a vague doubt that the defendant's statement is false, and that the defendant provided preferential treatment to E, F, etc., the defendant is recognized to have made the above statement.