Defendants shall be punished by a fine of KRW 500,000.

In the event that the Defendants did not pay the above fine, each of them is 100.

Punishment of the crime

Defendant

B is the president of the tenant representative of the unit of the unit of the unit of the unit of the unit of the unit of the unit of the unit of the unit of the unit of the unit of the unit of the unit of the unit of the unit of the unit.

Defendant

B received from Defendant A a confirmation letter stating the following facts: “Entrusted Management and Security Service Tender on January 28, 2013 to the 110 mother occupants prior to the bid for the entrusted management and security service, and it was agreed that the F, G’s employees, and the expenses were to be the commercial E E, and that it was the end as a result of opening the opening.” On January 28, 2014, Defendant A distributed it to the said representative and the occupants at the council of occupants’ representatives opened in the above apartment complex.

However, in fact, when the commercial Es.C. was selected as a security service company, the victim did not appear against the residents such as “to become a commercial Es. to become a commercial Es. to be good,” and the Defendant A merely stated the above contents in the above confirmation document based on a rumor, and did not have any such remarks from a reliable source.

Accordingly, the Defendants conspired to publicly indicate the aforementioned false facts, thereby impairing the reputation of the victim.

Summary of Evidence

1. Defendants’ partial statement

1. Each legal statement of witness E, H and I;

1. Defendant A’s factual confirmation

1. Minutes (Evidence Nos. 3);

1. Public announcement of the selection of security business entities;

1. Application of each statute of fact confirmation of J, K, and L;

1. Defendants of relevant criminal facts: Articles 307(2) and 30 of the Criminal Act;

1. Defendants to be detained in the Nowon-gu: The Defendants and the defense counsel regarding the assertion of the Defendants and the defense counsel under Articles 70(1) and 69(2) of the Criminal Act are all true. The contents of the confirmation document of this case are all true, and the preparation and distribution of the confirmation document of this case by the Defendants at the time are solely for the public interest or contravene social rules.