Defendant 1 and one other

Kim Customs ( Indictment) and Kim Yong-Un (Trial)

Attorney Park Sung-ho (Presiding Justice for all the defendants)

Defendant 1 shall be punished by a fine for negligence of KRW 2,00,000, and a fine of KRW 1,000,000, respectively.

In the event that the Defendants did not pay the above fine, the Defendants shall be confined in the Labor House for the period calculated by converting the amount of KRW 100,000 into one day.

To order the Defendants to pay an amount equivalent to the above fine.

Defendant 1 is a person who was audited in the corporate register of Nonindicted Co. 4 and was registered as a shareholder, and Defendant 2 is a representative director in the corporate register of Nonindicted Co. 4 and was registered as a business registration representative, and Defendant 1 and Defendant 2 are married, and Defendant 1 and Defendant 1 are the victim Nonindicted Co. 1 are the representative of △△△

1. Interference with business;

가. 피고인 2는 피고인 1과 공모하여 2015. 4. 13. 11:30경부터 14:00경까지 울산 울주군 (주소 생략) △△△△ 사무실에서 피해자와 직원 6명 가량이 있는 자리에서 피해자에게 “씨발놈 니가 인간이가, 씨발놈아 씹새끼 좃같은 새끼”라는 등의 욕설을 하고, 회사 직원들에게 “너희들은 도둑질을 같이 해주었다. 인생이 불쌍하다. 너희 부모가 불쌍하다. 돈 들여 공부시켜 놨더니 이런 좃같은 회사에 취직해서 일하고 있냐?”는 등의 욕설을 하면서 약 2시간 30여 분에 걸쳐 피해자의 정당한 회사 업무를 방해하였다.

B. From around 13:10 on April 16, 2015 to around 14:30, Defendant 1 interfered with the legitimate business affairs of the victim of the company for about one hour and 20 minutes at around 13:10 on the place where six employees are located at the place indicated in the preceding paragraph. Defendant 1 did not run an office of ○○○○○ (hereinafter “○○”). Defendant 1 did not run an office with his own food without his own food.” Defendant 1 interfered with the legitimate business affairs of the victim of the company for about 1 hour and 20 minutes.

2. Defendant 1’s defamation

A. At around 16:00 on April 8, 2015, Defendant 1 found to the △△△△△ branch located in the Cheongju-si, Cheongbuk-si, Cheongbuk-do, ( Address 2 omitted). Defendant 1 publicly damaged the victim’s reputation by publicly expressing false facts, such as “the victim embezzleds corporate public funds, embezzled females with the money, opened the money, and moved to the money, and led a woman with the money,” which read Nonindicted 5, the victim’s death penalty.

나. 피고인 1은 2015. 4. 13. 11:30경 울산 울주군 (주소 생략) △△△△ 사무실에 찾아와 직원들 6명가량이 있는 자리에서 피해자에게 “씨발놈 니가 인간이가, 씨발놈아 씹새끼 좃같은 새끼, 회사공금 횡령해서 그 돈으로 골프치러 다니고, 골프 치는 여자들하고 이제는 모텔이 아니고 호텔 다니데, 돈도 많다. 그 돈 다 공금 횡령한 거지.”라는 등 허위사실을 이야기하여 공연히 피해자의 명예를 훼손하였다.

다. 피고인 1 2015. 4. 14. 11:00경 위 2.의 나.항 기재 장소에서 직원들 6명가량이 있는 자리에서 피해자에게 “씨발놈, 좃같은 새끼, 횡령한 돈으로 여자 밑구녕에 다 갇다 넣고 그년들한테 명품가방 사주고, 회사돈 흥청망청 썼구만.”이라는 등의 허위사실을 이야기하여 공연히 피해자의 명예를 훼손하였다.

1. Defendants’ partial statement

1. Legal statement of Nonindicted 1’s witness

1. Recording notes, mail (Defendant 2-2, Nonparty 1), fact-finding certificates (delivery of evidential materials by Nonparty 7), and list of enterprise free deposit transactions;

1. Investigation report (No. 18,34);

[In relation to obstruction of business, the defendants asserted that the degree of interference with business was only limited to that of Non-Indicted 1 in their office, and that the defendants' act in their legitimate business activities is dismissed, and that in relation to defamation, even though Defendant 1 used some expressions in the process of Non-Indicted 1's corruption, it is not basically false, it is not true that the alleged facts were used in the process of Non-Indicted 1's corruption, and that the illegality is excluded as a legitimate act. However, in full view of the relationship between the defendants and the victim (the defendants and the victims were in the same business relationship, but there was a serious dispute about the right of management for a long time), the circumstances leading up to the occurrence of the case, the expressions used by the defendants, the outcome of the related criminal cases, and the circumstances after the occurrence of this case, it is apparent that the facts alleged by Defendant 1 are false, and the above defendants' act cannot be evaluated as

1. Article relevant to the facts constituting an offense and the selection of punishment;

A. Defendant 1: Article 307(2) of the Criminal Code, Article 314(1) of the Criminal Code, and Article 314(1) of the Criminal Code, the selection of each fine

B. Defendant 2: Articles 314(1) and 30(a) of the Criminal Act, and the selection of fines

1. Aggravation for concurrent crimes;

Defendant 1: former part of Article 37, Article 38(1)2, and Article 50 of the Criminal Act

1. Detention in a workhouse;

Articles 70(1) and 69(2) of the Criminal Act

1. Order of provisional payment;

Article 334(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act

Judges Lee Jin-dong