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

If the defendant fails to pay the above fine, 50,000 won shall be one day.

Punishment of the crime

On October 2012, the Defendant, at the office of the Lien Council (hereinafter referred to as “D”) located in Sinpo-si (hereinafter referred to as “D”) in Sinpo-si (hereinafter referred to as “D”), disseminated the false fact that “E-run L, a corporation, has defaulted,” thereby interfering with the management affairs of the victim E-company, by spreading the false fact at the H, I, J, and K located outside of G, in order to exclude the joint management rights of the victim E’s husband F, and secure the sole management rights.”

Summary of Evidence

1. The witness E's legal statement (excluding the professional part), witness G, and I's respective legal statement;

1. The first police statement of G, and the police statement of I with regard to the first police statement of G (the counsel asserts that the defendant's act of committing the crime of this case is a justifiable act that does not violate the social rules and thus the illegality is excluded, but the defendant's act cannot be viewed as a justifiable act in light of the degree of damage suffered by the victim E, and the above argument is rejected).

1. Relevant provisions of the Criminal Act and Articles 314 (1) and 313 (Selection of Fine) of the Criminal Act concerning facts constituting an offense;

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

1. The dismissal part of the prosecution under Article 334 (1) of the Criminal Procedure Act

1. The facts charged in this part (Defamation)

A. On April 201, 201, the Defendant stated that “E was made a fraud to M, even though the victim E did not have any son relations with M, the Defendant was at the seat of H,O, P, I, and J, which is a cause of the N, and that “E was a dead funeral, M was attached to E”.

B. The Defendant was a policeman on April 201, 201.

The facts at the office of the D Lien Council stated as follows: “M is an original satisfy, and fying E is a satfy, and fying, even though the victim E was not raped by the victim E.”, it was said that “M was a satfy, and fying E is a satfy.”

C. The Defendant on May 201.