Defendant shall be punished by a fine of KRW 1,500,000.

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

Punishment of the crime

At around 11:00 and around 12:00 on September 28, 2012, the Defendant distributed false information to the victim’s restaurant business by spreading false information, such as “The Defendant, at the place where G, etc. was located in the vicinity of “E” restaurant for the victim’s D operation of the Namyang-si, the Defendant interfered with the victim’s restaurant business by spreading false information, such as “The Defendant sold the Dasle and the Dusle language’s country of origin at the E restaurant.”

Summary of Evidence

1. Statement made by a witness H in the third protocol of the trial;

1. Statements made by witnesses G in the fourth trial records;

1. Statement made by a witness I in the fifth protocol of the trial;

1. Partial statement of each police suspect interrogation protocol against the defendant;

1. Statement made by the police officer in G; and

1. Application of the Acts and subordinate statutes written confirmation of G;

1. Relevant provisions of the Criminal Act and Articles 314 (1) and 313 of the Criminal Act concerning the choice of punishment;

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

1. The Defendant’s assertion of Article 334(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act against the Defendant’s assertion of provisional payment order is asserted that there is no time to conclude the same statement as the facts constituting the offense in the judgment. It denies the instant criminal facts.

In this court, G, around September 2012, stated that before F, the Defendant entered the same remarks as the facts constituting a crime in G, and that there were several persons at the time when there were places where people gather (2 pages of the protocol of examination of witness in G), and that the Defendant made a clear statement of the same remarks as the facts constituting a crime.

(3) G consistently stated for the same purpose in the investigative agency, that the Defendant, prior to filing a criminal charge for viewing, at any time at the E cafeteria where the four persons gather, told them that they belong to and sell imported acids or China in the E cafeteria (202 pages of investigation records), and that they sell Chinese products by deceiving the Republic of Korea (203 pages of investigation records).

Defendant .