Defendant shall be punished by a fine of 200,000 won.

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

Punishment of the crime

From March 7, 2016, the Defendant is in charge of the general affairs of the apartment complex center in the Gunsan City from March 7, 2016, and the victim D shall be the chairperson of the same senior citizen

The victim, on March 18, 2016, KRW 767,00, including a misunderstanding, smelling, etc. necessary for senior citizens' clubs on March 18, 2016, and the same year

3. On March 21, 2016, around 20, after purchasing food 112,50 won, such as ancient bags and oil, by paying in the personal card, the Defendant submitted a receipt equivalent to the total of 879,500 won to the Defendant. On March 21, 2016, 90,000 won was collected from the Defendant’s deposit passbook and withdrawn around March 21, 2016, after deducting the amount equivalent to the above 880,000 won from the deposit passbook, and there was no embezzlement of public funds in the center for senior citizens.

Nevertheless, on October 28, 2016, the Defendant is not a head of the drinking Gu-Si office of the new Dong office of 224, the center of the Do-si, the Do-si, the Do-dong office of 224, the center of the Do-si, the Do-si, the Do-si, the Do-si, the E, F, G, etc. to the victim.

“.....”

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

Summary of Evidence

1. Statement by the defendant in court;

1. Each police statement made to D or E;

1. Investigation report (verification report on the results of dispositions related to the case), decision on non-prosecution, written opinion (Evidence Record 90-97 pages);

1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes on the revenue and expenditure of senior citizen centers;

1. Article 307 (2) of the Criminal Act applicable to the relevant criminal facts and Article 307 (2) of the choice of punishment;

2. Article 70 (1) and Article 69 (2) of the Criminal Act to attract a workhouse.

3. Article 334(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act of the Provisional Payment Order requires the Defendant to suspend the sentence, but it is impossible to suspend the sentence as the Defendant has a reason under the proviso of Article 59(1) of the Criminal Act.

However, it appears that the defendant and the victim appear to have been pushed ahead of each other at the time, taking into account the circumstances that only the defendant seems to have been prosecuted, etc., a punishment lower than a summary order is imposed.