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

The defendant was between the victim C and the defendant's workplace club in the Seoul Northern-gu, Seocheon-gu, the Seoul Special Metropolitan City Development Bank Co., Ltd.

1. On December 2016, 2016, the Defendant: (a) was the first police officer of the Defendant on December 12, 2016, at a restaurant in the company above; and (b) the victim was not in the relationship with F, the workplace master; (c) even though the victim was not in the relationship with F, the Defendant inspected the cafeteria nutrition G and H’s view that “the victim was fright and winded.”

“The honor of the victim was damaged by openly pointing out false facts.”

2. From December 7, 2016 to January 5, 2017, the Defendant reported that “the victim was in an inappropriate relationship with F,” while the Defendant was aware of sexual harassment as FJF’s company and was sexual harassment. From January 7, 2016 to January 5, 2017, the Defendant reported that the Defendant was sexual harassment.

The victim shall be able to see the F with the winding

“The honor of the victim was damaged by openly pointing out false facts.”

Summary of Evidence

1. Statement by the defendant in court;

1. Statement of the police statement related to C and G;

1. The application of each recording record, each of the Acts and subordinate statutes for investigation reporting;

1. Relevant provisions of the Criminal Act and Article 307 (2) of the Criminal Act concerning the selection of punishment for a crime;

1. The former part of Article 37 of the Criminal Act, and Articles 38 (1) 2 and 50 of the same Act, which aggravated concurrent crimes;

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

1. The reason for sentencing of Article 334(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act for the order of provisional payment seems to have considerable mental suffering.

Until now there has been no agreement with the victim.

However, the defendant recognized his mistake as a first offense, and is against himself.

Although it is true that the defendant made a somewhat rush speech, in light of the series of cases and circumstances experienced by the defendant, F, and F's spouse I, it seems that the degree of awareness of the defendant's falsity was low.

In addition, the statements of one victim are made.