Defendant shall be punished by a fine of two million won.

If the defendant does not pay the above fine, 100,000 won shall be one day.

Punishment of the crime

around February 14, 2012, the Defendant: (a) at the coffee shop near Gangnam-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government, the Defendant: (b) did not embezzled money from the victim D with respect to the pest recycling business; (c) did not mean that “D intending to take a branch of the E organization as female members of the E organization would not take money from KRW 1 billion through the pest business; and (d) would not take a part in the branch office of the E organization; and (e) at the parking lot, etc. located in the Gangnam-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government Daedong-gu, Seoul Metropolitan Government, the Defendant damaged the reputation of the victim by openly pointing out false facts.

Summary of Evidence

1. Legal statement of witness G;

1. The entry of a witness F in the third protocol of the trial, the entry of a witness D in the fourth protocol of the trial, the entry of a witness H and I in the fifth protocol of the trial;

1. Each police statement made to D, F, H, and J;

1. The statements of H, G, and I, and the statements of F on November 28, 2012;

1. A complaint;

1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes to an investigation report on coal applications;

1. Article 307(2) of the Criminal Act applicable to the relevant criminal facts and Article 307(2) of the choice of punishment (generally, choice of fines);

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

1. The defendant and his defense counsel's assertion on the assertion of the defendant and his defense counsel under Article 334 (1) of the Criminal Procedure Act asserts that all the words of the defendant, such as the facts charged, are true. The defendant's act of this case merely raised a problem for the public interest purpose of preventing corruption of the E organization and resolving suspicions, and therefore, illegality is excluded pursuant to Article 310 of the Criminal Act.

However, according to the above evidence, in light of the contents of the above horses, phrases and methods of expression, motive and circumstance of the defendant's above horses, the defendant believed that the above horses were true, and there were reasonable grounds to believe that the above horses were true, and that there was reasonable grounds to believe that the above horses were true.

(2).