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

The defendant was the auditor of the apartment house C in Southyang-si, and the victim D is the representative of all occupants.

At around 19:30 on April 20, 2016, the Defendant, at the office of the representative apartment council of the above apartment complex around 19:30 on the ground that the Defendant continued to her only while the Defendant was married, and obstructed the meeting without responding to the Defendant’s proposal, and that there were many other participants in the other meetings, the Defendant called “Sacied and present the data to the Defendant,” “Sacied the money”, “Sacied and 2.4 million won per mail.”

“The injured party arbitrarily embezzled 2.4 million won of apartment funds.”

However, the victim was paid 2.4 million won by the resolution of the same representative at the expense of the victim for the progress of civil litigation on behalf of the above apartment.

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

Summary of Evidence

1. Partial statement of the defendant;

1. A protocol concerning the suspect examination of the accused by the prosecution;

1. Each protocol concerning the examination of the police officers in relation to E, F, and G;

1. Statement made by the police against D;

1. Each statement of H and I;

1. Details on the examination of operating expenses and management expenses of the fourth representative meeting of occupants;

1. Recording files CDs, contents of recording conversations, and recording notes;

1. Application of statutes to the minutes of regular meetings, records of magazines, and certificates of deposit in August 8 of the third period;

1. Relevant Article 307 of the Criminal Act concerning criminal facts, Article 307 (2) of the Criminal Act concerning the selection of punishment, and selection of fines;

1. The determination of the Defendant’s assertion regarding Articles 70(1) and 69(2) of the Criminal Act with respect to the detention of the workhouse appears to mean that the Defendant embezzleds a negative amount of money by means of a resolution of the said representative. The Defendant’s assertion is difficult to accept since it is false as to the fact that the victim received KRW 2.4 million through a resolution of the said representative.

The reason for sentencing is that the defendant, as an auditor of the representative meeting of apartment occupants, committed a simple offence in the debate on the use of apartment funds at the representative meeting of occupants.