Defendant

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

Defendant

If A does not pay the above fine, 100,000 won.

Punishment of the crime

Defendant

A is a vice-chairperson of the representative meeting of the employees of the Yeongdeungpo-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government Office Office Office Officetel, and the victim D is a person who was the chairperson of the above representative meeting until June 2014.

Defendant

A In the special meeting held at around 19:00 on July 20, 2014, the instant officetel occupants were present, and the fact was that the victim called the head of the E-building management office to the effect that the instant officetel’s building was invaded by the site of the E-building and thus returned, even though the victim did not say that the said officetel’s building was damaged by the victim’s telephone to the head of the E-building management office, it was read that “7.2, which is the land of the E-building, was called the head of the E-building management office by phoneing to the head of the E-building management office, and damaged the victim’s reputation by openly pointing out false facts.”

Summary of Evidence

1. Legal statement of the witness D;

1. Legal statement of witness F;

2. A criminal investigation report (the meeting of occupants' representatives on July 20, 2014) (applicable to statutes;

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

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

1. The defense counsel’s assertion on the defense counsel under Article 334(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act alleged that the act of the above crime was solely for the public interest and thus unlawful. However, in light of the motive and background of the crime of this case, the method and process of the crime and the circumstances after the crime, etc. acknowledged by the evidence adopted earlier, the defendant’s act was solely for the public interest with the contents consistent with the facts.

Therefore, the above argument cannot be accepted.

The acquittal portion

1. Defendant A is the vice-chairperson of the representative meeting of the employees of Yeongdeungpo-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government Office Officetel, Defendant B is the auditor of the above representative meeting, and the victim D is the above representative meeting until June 2014.