Defendant shall be punished by a fine of five million won.

If the defendant does not pay the above fine, KRW 100,000.

Punishment of the crime

The Defendant is a manager of Eunpyeong-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government Condominium Group (hereinafter referred to as the “instant building”), who is an operator of B, a building management company (state).

1. From January 2, 2017, the Defendant of defamation: (a) at the temporary office of the 9th floor of the instant building; (b) around November 14, 2014, the instant building management unit that belongs to the victim D, etc. (hereinafter “instant management unit”) was duly established by holding a general assembly of the C Building management unit around November 14, 2014; and (c) notified the details of disbursement and imposition of management expenses in the notice of management expenses; (d) however, the current building of the C is an organization that voluntarily created the instant building without going through a notice of convening an assembly under Article 34 of the Act on the Ownership and Management of Aggregate Buildings (the Act on the Ownership and Management of Aggregate Buildings) and without constituting a lawful management unit.

This voluntary organization is the foregoing problems, and the current divided owner and the lessee have suffered economic loss due to the poor management, but only the low cost is not required.

“The cost of unrealistic management services” can be known to the relevant worker when he/she asks about whether he/she is embezzled or not he/she receives the cost of cleaning.

At the time of cleaning expenses, the expenses for the management services of the portion are 27 million won per person, respectively.

If we look at the situation in which you manage our property for a imprudent execution book, you will be different from what you will leave to the imprudente.

After preparing a notice stating the contents of “the instant building,” the victim’s reputation was damaged by openly pointing out false facts by sending it by mail to the owners of the instant building and directly delivering it to the lessees of the instant building.

2. The Defendant interfering with business has distributed false advices at the time and place specified in paragraph 1 as stated in paragraph 1, and the facts are as follows.