Defendant shall be punished by a fine of one million won.

If the defendant does not pay the above fine, KRW 100,000.

Punishment of the crime

On August 24, 2015, the Defendant’s failure to institute an appeal in Dongjak-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government apartment complex, “The president of the D previous representative of the D previous occupant did not take any measure even after having received the prosecutor’s notice of non-prosecutions from the prosecutor’s office, and did not set the date of appeal at the occupant’s representative meeting.”

“A refusal to approve the project for replacing rooftop waterproof and Water Pipelines”, “A request was made with the signature of all the representatives at the Seoul Water Service Business Place for a request for the subsidy for replacing water pipes. A request was made with the signature of all the representatives at the same time.” A request was sent to the resident of the above apartment, stating the contents of “a refusal to sign with D representative thickness,” and around September 3, 2015, “a refusal to approve the project for replacing rooftop waterproof and Water Pipelines and making a signature possible at the same place and at the same time on September 3, 2015,” and the reason for objection is what is the reason for objection.

In addition, the letter of request for a subsidy for the replacement of the water pipeline at the Seoul Metropolitan Government Water Service Business Office was required to have the signature of all the representatives of the Dong, and the mail containing the contents of the victim D, such as the refusal to sign the D representative thickness, was sent to the number of apartment residents.

The fact is that the victim did not receive the notice of non-prosecution and did not neglect it even after receiving the notice of non-prosecution, and did not raise an objection to the fairness of the bidding result and did not sign ex officio, and did not refuse the approval of the rooftop waterproof and the replacement of water supply pipeline for the purpose of opposing the construction, and there was no fact that the victim did not refuse the signature of the replacement of water supply pipeline.

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. Legal statement of the witness D;

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

1. Complaint;

1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes on police statements made to D;

1. Relevant Articles of the Act concerning the facts constituting the crime;