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

In the event that the Defendants did not pay the above fine, the Defendants did not pay the fine.

Punishment of the crime

Defendants and victims D are the environmental U.S. dollars belonging to the E-AB and the victim F is the team leader who manages the environmental U.S. dollars belonging to the said company.

1. Defendant A: (a) around 11:00 in the middle of September 2015, Defendant A: (b) around 11:00 and around 515 women’s toilets of the above G 3rd of G; (c) Defendant A, despite that the victim F and D do not have any relationship between the victim F and D, is a worker’s partner, “F is good,” and the father is good.

어쩐다 나, 과부들 하고 논다 ”라고 말하여 공연히 허위사실을 적시하여 피해자 F의 명예를 훼손하였다.

2. On September 2015 or around October 2010, Defendant B: (a) even though the victims did not have any relationship in the E-A-WU office in the above G, Defendant B, at the 10-day place of business, including I, 10 employees, provided that the victims did not have any contact; and (b) he dump dump alcohol with F and D; and (c) whether such person was the head of the E-WO team; (d)

F and D shall be out of the Republic of Korea, and they shall be free from time to time.

“The honor of victims was damaged by openly pointing out false facts.”

Summary of Evidence

1. The Defendants’ respective legal statements

1. Each legal statement of the witness H, I, J, and K;

1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes on police statements made to F and D;

1. The Defendants: Article 307(2) of the Criminal Act and Article 307(2) of the Criminal Act and the selection of fines for negligence

1. Defendants to be detained in the workhouse: Articles 70(1) and 69(2) of the Criminal Act;

1. The Defendants of the Provisional Payment Order asserted to the effect that the Defendants guilty of Article 334(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act, as stated in the facts charged in the instant case, did not mention the victims of other environmental U.S. dollars, the Defendants made false statements in order to gather the Defendants from other trade unions.

However, the following circumstances revealed by the evidence duly adopted and investigated by this court, i.e., Defendant 1 was under cleaning at the time of the witness H.