Defendant shall be punished by a fine of KRW 1,500,000.

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

Punishment of the crime

around July 20, 2015, the Defendant and E are those who have caused severe damage to the owners of commercial buildings, as the title “the victim G” from the Seocho-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government Office of the F Commercial Association to “licking to many members of the prosperity Association.”

2. The inducement was prepared to the effect that the 1 year period has elapsed since the illegal possession of a common resting place near about 100 square meters of the floor rent, and that it was not used as a warehouse, and thus, in order to bring about a false inciting a name-based lawsuit, as attached to H, to the name-based lawsuit, and sent it by mail to the members of the above name-based association.

However, there is no fact that the victim illegally occupied the second floor's common rest area, and there is no fact that the victim made a false conspiracy attached to H's side.

As a result, the Defendant conspired with E, thereby impairing the honor of the victim by pointing out false facts.

Summary of Evidence

1. Each legal statement of witness G and I;

1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes to the notification, judgement, and public notice of the result of disposition of inducement or accusation cases;

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

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

1. Article 334 (1) of the Criminal Procedure Act concerning the order of provisional payment;

1. Determination as to the assertion of the defendant and his/her defense counsel under the main sentence of Article 186(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act

1. The gist of the assertion is that the Defendant did not sign the preparation of the instant printed matter, and there was no fact that the instant printed matter was sent to the members of the prosperity Association, or that the Defendant instructed or allowed the third party to dispatch the printed matter.

2. The following circumstances that can be recognized by the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court of this case, namely, the chairperson of the commercial conference of this case from January 1, 2012 to December 31, 2015, and the defendant is an executive officer of the commercial conference of this case from January 1, 2014 to December 31, 2015; ② the printed matter of this case (the 11 pages of the investigation record) contains the signatures of E and the defendant; ③ the defense counsel is the defense counsel.