Defendant shall be punished by a fine of KRW 700,000.

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

Punishment of the crime

1. From September 22, 2012 to October 10, 2012, the Defendant, as the title “Namebook 36”, posted the printed materials containing false information to the victim D, who is the head of the apartment management office of this case, “ even though the studio plate was removed from the 103 roof on the last 103 roof of the 103 roof of the 14th typhoonb event, the Defendant did not have to conduct a preliminary inspection and net inspection,” thereby impairing the victim’s reputation by publicly pointing out false information.

2. On July 7, 2012, the Defendant insultd the victim publicly by putting up 36 the instant apartment entrance glass door, on the part of the victim, a printed matter of the name “the name of the head of the machine in which he/she had at the temperature is located at a canter,” and on July 16, 2012, the Defendant posted each printed item of “the name of the head of the D Management Office to report the writing of the head of the D Management Office “on the ice so that the ice can face two ices” at the same place, stating “on the ice so that the ice can face the ice.”

Summary of Evidence

1. Partial statement of the defendant;

1. Witness D's testimony;

1. As to the issue of defamation, the defendant, and his defense counsel, as to each copy of the name “Name”, a copy of the Do Management Office’s text, a copy of the Do Management Office’s letter, the defendant’s defense counsel’s assertion that the defendant’s assertion of defamation cannot be said to be false, and as such, the defendant posted the same contents for the public interest, the illegality of

However, according to the evidence, the victim D, on August 27, 2012, which was issued a typhoon warning due to the typhoon’s “Bennab”, was found to have conducted a safety inspection on the whole apartment facilities of this case. Nevertheless, the Defendant may fully recognize that the victim’s reputation was undermined by pointing out false facts, such as the fact of the crime, stating that “the victim did not conduct the facility inspection and patrol at all.”

The above assertion is made.