2014 Defamation60

A, Company Board

Gu residents flag (prosecutions) and Kim Fluor (Trial)

Attorney Lee Han-ro

June 12, 2014

Defendant shall be punished by a fine of 5,00,000 won. If the Defendant does not pay the above fine, the Defendant shall be confined in the workhouse for the period calculated by converting 50,000 won into one day.

To order the defendant to pay an amount equivalent to the above fine.

Criminal History Office

1. From November 10, 2012 to December 12, 2012, the Defendant: (a) opened an open meeting for the opposition to the purchase of the purchase of the purchase of the purchase of the purchase of the purchase of the purchase of the purchase of the purchase of the purchase of the purchase of the purchase of the purchase of the purchase of the purchase of the purchase of the purchase of the purchase of the purchase of the purchase of the purchase of the purchase of the purchase of the purchase of the purchase of the purchase of the purchase of the purchase of the purchase of the purchase of the purchase of the purchase of the purchase of the purchase of the purchase of the purchase of the purchase of the purchase of the purchase of the purchase of the purchase of the purchase of the purchase of the purchase of the purchase of the purchase of the purchase of the purchase of the purchase of the purchase of the purchase of the purchase of the purchase of the purchase of the purchase of the purchase of the purchase of the purchase of the purchase of the purchase of the purchase of the purchase of the purchase of the purchase of

2. On November 11, 2012, the Defendant damaged the reputation of the victim by openly pointing out false facts to the following purport: (a) although the victim B requested that the head of the apartment sales team C, the head of the apartment sales team C, the head of the above apartment sales team, take away the apartment discount or the pre-sale of the pre-sale of the pre-sale of the pre-sale of the pre-sale of the pre-sale of the pre-sale of the pre-sale of the pre-sale of the pre-sale of the pre-sale of the pre-sale of the pre-sale of the pre-sale of the pre-sale of the pre-sale of the pre-sale of the pre-sale of the pre-sale of the pre-sale of the pre-sale of the pre-sale of the pre-sale of the pre-sale of the pre

Summary of Evidence

1. Each legal statement of witness B, D, C, E, F, and G;

Application of Statutes

1. Article relevant to the facts constituting an offense and the selection of punishment;

Article 307 (2) of the Criminal Code, Selection of fines

1. Aggravation for concurrent crimes;

Articles 37 (former part), 38 (1) 2, and 50 of the Criminal Act

1. Detention in a workhouse;

Articles 70 and 69(2) of the Criminal Act

1. Order of provisional payment;

Article 334(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act

Judgment on the argument of the defendant and defense counsel

The defendant and his defense counsel asserts that the illegality is excluded in accordance with Article 310 of the Criminal Act because the contents of the defendant's statement are true, not false, and is about public interest.

However, in full view of the statements made by the witnesses, the Defendant was leading the opposite assembly on the discount sale at the time. However, women’s conference appears to have a hot position on it. The Defendant heard talks about the sales plan to the effect that the victim intends to carry on business by introducing D through the victim for the sale of unsold quantity in lots from the sales team leader C of the Culture Construction. However, the Defendant made a statement to the purport that the victim asked D to bring the intermediary quantity to the sales team leader, and the number of discounted sales units arranged by D operating the authorized brokerage business, can be acknowledged as having only one of the total 60 households. The Defendant’s statement on the criminal facts does not object to discount sale, but does not seem to have satisfied the requirements of Article 10 of the Criminal Act, and thus, the Defendant’s assertion that the victim and D, the president, who is a member of the women’s council, actively participating in the sale of lots at discount, cannot be seen as having known that the Defendant’s assertion that the Defendant’s participation in the above is unlawful.

Judges Kim In-bok