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

Where the defendant fails to pay the above fine, one hundred thousand won shall be one day.

Punishment of the crime

Around January 9, 2013, the Defendant, as the president of the central branch of the Jung-gu Seoul Metropolitan City, was the victim G and H operation, and around January 9, 2013, at the office of the above shopping mall, the Defendant sent documents stating that “The victim has been granted all benefits for the management expenses and the operation of the shopping mall from K, which is the former president, and intentionally disturbs the order with the neighboring neighboring merchants. They are unpaid for three months from October 2012, and have caused enormous trouble in the operation of the shopping mall. Of these, some merchants, after the closure point, are drinking alcohol in the central passage of the shopping mall and fluening it without chest. To the lessee who interferes with the operation of the shopping mall, the Defendant sent the documents stating that “The contract is changed to review the renewal contract for the development of the shopping mall.”

However, there was no fact that the victims did not pay management expenses.

As such, the Defendant damaged the honor of the victims by openly pointing out false facts.

Summary of Evidence

1. Partial statement of the defendant;

1. Each legal statement of witness G and H;

1. A complaint;

1. Application of the details of mail, receipts for operating fees, and statutes;

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

1. Articles 40 and 50 of the Criminal Act of the Commercial Concurrent Crimes;

1. Selection of an alternative fine for punishment;

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

1. The Defendant’s assertion on the assertion of the Defendant and the defense counsel under Article 334(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act regarding the provisional payment order is: (i) the content of the instant documents is true; and (ii) the Defendant’s act is deemed unlawful for the sake of the public interest, such as the performance of duties, which is intended by the Commercial Building Operation Committee for the braille of the entire members; and (iii) even if the instant documents were false, the Defendant believed that the content of the instant documents was true, or where there exist justifiable reasons,