Defendants shall be punished by a fine of KRW 1,000,000.

The Defendants did not pay each of the above fines.

Punishment of the crime

1. Around December 30, 2016, Defendant B, the president of the C, and the fact in the E fyp coffee shop located in Gui-si, Gui-si, D, did not bring the victim F a gift coupon in the C office, thereby impairing the victim’s reputation by openly pointing out false facts by stating that “F brought a gift coupon in the (C) office and installed CCTV in the office,” despite the fact that C members G and H listened to the gift coupon.

2. Around January 2017, Defendant A was a member of the Defendant, and at the J-ro Party in the Guri-si I market, the fact that the victim did not bring a gift certificate in the C office, thereby impairing the victim’s reputation by openly pointing out false facts, stating, “F had set up CCTV at the seat of 20 persons, including C members K and H, and C, and 20 persons, including H. In the office. There was no gift certificate, but there was no gift certificate, and F was no gift certificate, and F brought about.”

Summary of Evidence

1. The defendant A's partial statement in the first trial record;

1. Application of the Acts and subordinate statutes governing the statements made by witnesses F, G, H and K in the second trial records;

1. Relevant Article 307(2) of the Criminal Act and the Defendants’ choice of punishment regarding criminal facts

1. Defendants of detention in a workhouse: Articles 70(1) and 69(2) of the Criminal Act

1. The Defendants of the provisional payment order: Determination on the Defendants and their defense counsel’ assertion under Article 334(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act

1. Summary of the assertion

A. Defendant B’s installation of CCTV in the instant C office around December 30, 2016, did not have visited G and H to the said office on the same day, and there was no fact between G and H, and there was no fact that Defendant B made the remarks as indicated in the facts charged in the instant case.

B. Defendant A, among the facts charged in the instant case, stated that “the victim was hicker,” but the Defendant stated to the effect that “the victim was not a good,” and that “the victim was brought about.”