208 Defamation. 200

KimO(00000-000000), Real estate business

Residential wood-si O0 dong

Standard place of registration 00 Mapo-si

Maximum source stone

Attorneys Yoon Ma-O(Korean)

March 12, 2008

The defendant shall be innocent.

The summary of this decision shall be published.

1. Summary of the facts charged

On February 1, 2007, the Defendant: (a) prepared a lease agreement with the victim Kim 00 and Dong name, a company whose representative director is 00 Doo-si, 00-0 on the 6th floor in the ground-based building located in 00 Doo-si, 000-0; (b) agreed to lease from March 1, 2007 to March 1, 2008; (c) agreed to determine the above lease agreement if certain conditions are met; and (d) was in operation of the above private letter from March 1, 207 to the Defendant’s employee Kim 00, due to the payment of electricity and water supply fees, the Defendant was subject to the measures of cutting down and cutting down the above building due to the payment of electricity and water supply fees.

Around April 30, 2007, the Defendant: (a) from around 000, to March 2007, at around 000, the water supply charge for the Defendant’s operation, which was located at 00,000, to March, 2007; (b) was not used by the owner of the building; (c) was remitted KRW 5.8 million to the owner of the building; (d) but (e) was given notice of the above disposal and short-term disposal as above, because the Defendant did not pay the water supply charge and electricity charge for a building owner’s illegal act, (e.g., KRW 5., KRW 5.8 million, KRW 2 million, KRW 2.2 million, KRW 2 million, KRW 3405,980, KRW 22 million, and KRW 000,000 to KRW 00,000 for the owner of the building; and (e) was given to the owner of the building, who was an employee of the building owner of the building and notified of the damage.

2. Determination

According to evidence records, the following facts are recognized:

Around February 2007, the Defendant: (a) purchased, sold, or leased the instant building at approximately KRW 520 million from Kim 00,000; (b) operated 00 gynasium on March of the same year in accordance with the terms and conditions of a special agreement; (c) the net profit was less than anticipated; (d) on the other hand, Kim 00 paid a certain amount of the water supply tax and electricity tax imposed on the instant building; and (e) the Defendant leased and operated the instant building on April 2, 2007, paid a certain amount of the electricity supply tax and monthly rent of KRW 10 million to Kim 00 for other purposes.

On April 16 of the same year, the Defendant asserted the invalidity of the above sale or lease agreement and demanded the return of KRW 230 million which was already paid.

From March 2007, the Defendant began to operate the building of this case. On April 24, 2007, the Defendant was notified from the water supply and sewerage administration division in the wooden Market around 2007 that the water supply and sewerage will be disposed of as of April 30, 2007 due to the default of two months (on November, 2006, March, 2007) of the water supply and sewerage tax. The Defendant was notified that it would be subject to the temporary measure on May 7, 2007 from the Korea Electric Power Corporation’s wooden Branch in arrears for three months (on February, 207 through April, 2007) of the electricity tax.

On April 2007, the Defendant prepared a printed article as stated in the facts charged and divided it to the shop occupants.

From the perspective of the defendant who operated a building with 00 gymnas as of April 2007, when the defendant did not pay the money in the name of the electricity supply fee paid by the defendant to Kim 00, it shall be deemed that the defendant himself paid the electric power supply fee from the tenant, and the defendant's act was prepared at the intention to avoid the group withdrawal of the members of the gymnasium. In light of the contents in itself, there is no expression that can be deemed to have lost the social value or evaluation of Kim 00, and even if the reputation of Kim 00 was damaged due to the distribution of the above domestic products, in light of all the circumstances such as the situation leading up to the above act, its purpose, means, and intent, such act is for the execution of his rights and duties, and it is therefore deemed that there is a lack of illegality that is reasonable to be permissible by social norms.

Therefore, since the above act of the defendant does not constitute a justifiable act under Article 20 of the Criminal Code, it is judged not guilty in accordance with the former part of Article 325 of the Criminal Procedure Act, and the summary of this decision is announced in accordance with Article 58 (2) of the

Degree of Nature