Defendant shall be punished by a fine of KRW 1,000,000.

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

Punishment of the crime

The defendant is a person living in the next house of the victim F, and the victim is a person who was representing the victim in Mapo-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government from August 2008 to September 2012.

1. Around August 7, 2013, the Defendant insultingd the victim by publicly insulting the victim on the 10 residents living in front of the landing bridge in Mapo-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government, stating the victim as “one year after the end of the house, giving special and special consent on the 10th anniversary of the apartment house.”

2. On September 13, 2013, the Defendant defamationd the victim’s reputation by openly pointing out false facts to the victim’s false information by stating that “F will collect money from several residents with no cost of repairing defects during the representative period, and KRW 300,000,000,000 to seven residents with no cost of repairing defects during the representative period,” even though the fact in Mapo-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government apartment was not against the victim F’s corruption during the representative period.”

Summary of Evidence

1. Entry of each part of the accused in the protocol of the second and third trial;

1. Each legal statement of witness F and I;

1. A complaint;

1. The application of Acts and subordinate statutes to a criminal investigation report (Attachment of investigative documents) and a criminal investigation report;

1. Relevant Article 307 (2) and Article 311 of the Criminal Act and the choice of fines for the crime;

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

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

1. The Defendant asserts that the illegality of the Defendant’s assertion under Article 334(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act does not exist at the time when the Defendant made a statement as stated in the facts charged, and the Defendant merely used a somewhat exaggerated expression in the process of protesting against the fact that the victim F himself/herself carried out his/her duties as the same representative, and therefore, it does not violate the social rules as stipulated in Article 20 of the Criminal Act.

However, according to the above evidence, the victim is the council of occupants' representatives on February 28, 2010.