On November 14, 2013, the Defendant made a statement that “the victim F, who was present in the capacity of 25 persons, such as directors, etc. in the door, shall be held in the meeting of a temporary board of directors to obtain subsequent approval for the amount of KRW 45 million paid out of the agreed money for a litigation case in E and C,” and that “the victim F, who was present in the capacity of 25 persons, such as directors, etc. in the meeting, shall be deemed to have the victim F, who was present in the meeting of 25 persons, shall be deemed to have the victim’s reputation,” and the Defendant shall be deemed to have the victim’s reputation, who was the victim’s f, who was present in the meeting of the board of directors, “I shall not know the horse, fladice, flady, 20 million won, flady,” and damaged the victim’s reputation in the door C, who was attending the board of directors.

Summary of Evidence

1. Defendant's legal statement;

1. The police statement concerning F;

1. A complaint;

1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes governing recording records;

1. Relevant provisions of the Criminal Act and Article 307 (1) of the Criminal Act concerning the choice of punishment;

1. Penalty fine of 500,000 won to be suspended;

1. Articles 70(1) and 69(2) of the Criminal Act (100,000 won a day);

1. Determination as to the assertion by the Defendant and the defense counsel under Article 59(1) of the Criminal Act (see, e.g., circumstances of crime, relationship between the Defendant and the victim, and absence of particular criminal records)

1. In the crime of defamation as to the assertion that there is no intention of public performance or defamation, performance refers to the state in which many and unspecified persons can recognize it (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 92Do445, May 26, 1992). According to the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court, the defendant can be recognized as having a public performance inasmuch as he/she made a statement on the same page as the facts charged among the 25 members, and in light of the relationship with the victim and the literature members at the time, the defendant's intent of defamation is also recognized.

Therefore, the above argument is without merit.

2. The illegality is excluded.