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

Where the defendant fails to pay the above fine, one hundred thousand won shall be one day.

Punishment of the crime

Around March 15, 2015, the Defendant found D companies located in Busan Metropolitan City, as production books where E work as Dong fee, is cut off to a outdoor rest room, and damaged the reputation of the victim F by openly pointing out the fact that “I know that the relationship between F and G is well known, and that the labor union members are seriously incomparably and incomparably, G is aware,” and around April 2015, the Defendant damaged the reputation of the victim F by advertising E in the outdoor rest room of the above company.

Summary of Evidence

1. Partial statement of the defendant;

1. Application of each statute on witness F, E, H, and I’s respective legal statements;

1. Relevant provisions of the Criminal Act and Article 307 (1) of the Criminal Act concerning the selection of punishment;

1. Of concurrent crimes, the former part of Article 37, Articles 38 (1) 2 and 50 of the Criminal Act;

1. Articles 70 (1) and 69 (2) of the Criminal Act for the detention of a workhouse;

1. In full view of the following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence adopted and examined by this court on the assertion that there is no possibility to spread Article 334(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act, namely, it is difficult to view that the Defendant has a special status relationship with the Defendant or the victim to the extent that the Defendant does not talk about any content as stated in the facts constituting the crime in this case, E cannot be viewed as having a direct relation with such content, E cannot be viewed as having a direct relation, and at the time of the Defendant’s speech as above, there is no fact to the effect that “the Defendant would talk to another person.” The Defendant’s act is recognized as having a possibility of spreading

The acquittal portion

1. Around March 15, 2015, the Defendant found out a production book where the same person works for the pertinent D Company, and removed the same person from outdoor rest room, and then, the Defendant is Ga in fact.