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

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

Punishment of the crime

[Judgment of the court below] On March 20, 2014, the Defendant heard the lawsuit that the victim E, who leased and operated the “D” precious metal store in her husband C and the building owned by her husband, was in in influent relationship with the victim E, and discovered a tension head car and cosmetics at her house located in Seongbuk-gu Seoul, Seongbuk-gu, Seoul, Furra 402, and knew the victim and the above C of their clothes to inform them.

【Criminal Facts】

1. On April 2014, the Defendant called that “C and E were sent to G members of the instant tugboat group at the place above, and “C and E were sent to the G members of the instant tugboat group at the house of Korea. The evidence reveals that the head of the tension was discovered in the bed and the body was discovered.”

2. On April 2014, the Defendant called “C and E were sent to H, who was scarked and scarbed by the above C, at the above location, and “C and E were scarbed at the house bed. The evidence reveals that the tension was discovered in the bed and the body was discovered.”

3. Around 18:00 on May 29, 2014, the Defendant called, “C and E were sent to the Seongbuk Police Station, so the Defendant filed a complaint with the Sungbuk Police Station,” by phoneing to K, who is the towing staff of the above C, at the E-gu office of Yeonsu-gu Incheon, Yeonsu-gu, Incheon, I 101 Dong 202.

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

Summary of Evidence

1. Statement to E by the police;

1. Each fact-finding certificate of G, H and K;

1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes to each report on investigation;

1. Relevant Article 307 (1) of the Criminal Act concerning criminal facts, the choice of a fine, and the choice of a fine;

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. As to the defense counsel’s assertion under Article 334(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act, the defense counsel held that the defendant made a statement as stated in the facts charged of this case, but this is true that the defendant made a telephone call with the above people, and the above people would first ask the defendant about the contents of the case.