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

Around April 13, 2014, the Defendant did not reject all the agenda items by the victim D, who was the 101 Dong-dong representative of the above apartment council of occupants' representatives, and did not reject all the agenda items by the victim D, who was the 101 Dong-dong representative of the above apartment, but did not reject all the agenda items for two years, and the victim was at the center.

D, etc. postponed and withheld the district heating business.

“Written inducements to the effect that “ was made and put into each household mail, 101~5 dong 101.

Accordingly, the defendant has damaged the reputation of the victim by openly pointing out false facts.

Summary of Evidence

1. Partial statement of the defendant;

1. Legal statement of witness D;

1. Partial statement of the police interrogation protocol of the accused;

1. A copy of the complaint filed by D and “public notice of residents’ suspicion”;

1. Application of each Act and subordinate statute to the publication of the minutes of meetings of the representatives of each occupant, the written public announcement of large residents, and the written public announcement of the grade table to seven members of a C

1. Relevant provisions of the Criminal Act and Article 307 (2) of the Criminal Act concerning the selection of penalties;

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

1. Judgment on the assertion by the defendant and his/her defense counsel under Article 334(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act

1. The gist of the argument is that the Defendant stated true facts solely for the public interest, and thus, is not unlawful pursuant to Article 310 of the Criminal Act.

2. The following circumstances revealed by the evidence adopted and examined by this court, namely, that the defendant's 6 representative of the 12-year council of occupants' representatives, such as D, stated in the "public notice of resident's suspicion," did not reject all the items of the agenda for two years," is inconsistent with objective truth in light of the contents of each statement made by the defendant and D and the defendant, and the contents of each resident's public notice (87 pages of evidence record), including the minutes of each resident's representative meeting.