Defendant

A shall be punished by a fine of 700,000 won, and a fine of 300,000 won, respectively.

The above fine is imposed against the Defendants.

Punishment of the crime

From October 4, 2012 to November 21, 2012, Defendants conspired with each other, “I, in front of the F Real Estate Office for the Operation of the Victim E in Chungcheong-gun, Chungcheong-gun, U.S., the victim complained of a multiple thickness of 15 million won for Defendant A,” and “I, in front of the F Real Estate Office for the Operation of the Victim E, the victim, “I, in favor of the victim and the victim, have concealed the property even after the court ruling was rendered by the victim, and opened the external vehicle, thereby damaging the reputation of the victim.”

Summary of Evidence

1. Defendants’ partial statement

1. The suspect interrogation protocol against the Defendants

1. Statement to E by the police;

1. Application of statutes on site photographs;

1. Relevant provisions of the Criminal Act and Articles 307 (1) and 30 of the Criminal Act concerning the choice of punishment. Article 307 (Selection of Punishment of Fines)

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

1. Judgment on the assertion by the Defendants and the defense counsel under Article 334(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act

1. The summary of the assertion is that the Defendants, after inquiring the police officer, heard the speech that there is no problem, and conducted a ket demonstration, so the Defendants have to be dismissed from the responsibility due to the lack of awareness of illegality.

2. According to the witness H’s statement in the summary of the evidence prior to the determination, the Defendants stated that the Defendants used the diskettes in which words written in the facts constituting a crime in front of the F real estate office operated by the victim, and that the police officer called the victim’s report to the Defendant B was not subject to the report under the Assembly and Demonstration Act, but should not interfere with the business. However, the conversation related to defamation can be acknowledged.

According to the above facts, the defendants are from police officers.