Defendant shall be punished by a fine of KRW 2,000,000.

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

Punishment of the crime

From November 1, 2015 to February 2, 2011 of the same year, the Defendant, using smartphones, dialogueed with eight insurance designers of the C agency using smartphones, and the fact is not maintained by the victim D’s Kakao Group Stockholm room, without any fact that the victim D was getting on or going on, going on, was bad in credit, or was not maintained for a contract, the Defendant, despite the absence of the fact that “at once the fraud was revoked, it should not be the loaned of the offline of the vehicle on which he was going on, going on, and going on, the passage of the car, and the off-going Dome absolute money, the total fraud, the alteration of the membership, and the absolute Dome.”

Heededed completely in good faith;

D Only one case is not maintained and the recovery amount is almost 10 million and there is no answer by D, and D, more:

Until now, the honor of the victim was damaged by openly pointing out false facts by stating "theless fraud that has not been maintained until now."

Summary of Evidence

1. Partial statement of the defendant;

1. Legal statement of the witness D;

1. A protocol concerning the suspect examination of the accused by the prosecution;

1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes to the Kakao Stockholm dialogue content, loan certificates, investigation reports (Submission of materials and statements by the complainants);

1. Article 70 (2) of the Act on Promotion of Utilization of Information and Communications Network Utilization and Information Protection, etc., concerning facts constituting a crime and Article 70 of the relevant Act;

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

1. The defendant's defense counsel's defense of the defense counsel's assertion of Article 334 (1) of the Criminal Procedure Act of the Provisional Payment Order provides that since the defendant stated true contents for the public interest, illegality of the defendant's act is excluded.

According to the above evidence, it can be sufficiently recognized that the defendant's statement is false, and considering the contents of the statement written by the defendant and the process of the occurrence of this case, the defendant's act was conducted for the public interest.

Therefore, the above assertion by the defense counsel cannot be accepted.