A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for four months.

However, the execution of the above punishment shall be suspended for a period of two years from the date this judgment becomes final and conclusive.

Punishment of the crime

On January 2013, the Defendant phoneed to C in Daejeon Franchi, and “D drive off E”.

E has sexual intercourses with E in a number of times without prejudice to the other party;

As a false statement, 30 million won is demanded from her husband and intimidation.

There is no money, and there is no money.

From F, men and wind are driven away by driving away.

The first male was written in the Eastern where he tried to commit sexual harassment in the elevator.

“.........”

However, the facts are that E and the victim D have internal relations and have sexual relations by agreement, and the victim D did not unilaterally scam E, and there was no fact that the victim D requested E to pay money or had internal relations with other males.

The Defendant spreads such false facts publicly, thereby impairing the honor of the victim D.

Summary of Evidence

1. Partial statement of the defendant;

1. The legal statement of the witness C;

1. Statements made by witnesses D in the second public trial records;

1. Some of the statements made by the prosecution against the defendant in the suspect interrogation protocol (including D parts of the statement);

1. Statement made by the prosecution with regard to D;

1. Statement made by the police against C;

1. Application of Kakao Act and subordinate statutes on January 23, 2013 (Defendant, Defendant, and C)

1. Relevant Article 307 of the Criminal Act, the choice of punishment for the crime, Article 307 (2) of the Criminal Act, and the choice of imprisonment;

1. Article 62 (1) of the Criminal Act on the suspended execution;

1. The Defendant and his defense counsel asserted as to the assertion of Defendant and defense counsel under Article 62-2 of the Social Service Order Criminal Act, asserts that the Defendant made a single call with C around January 2013, but the Defendant did not state the same words as the statement of criminal facts.

However, the above adopted witness D and C’s statement consistent with the consistent and specific criminal facts can be recognized as credibility, and C at the time of the call of criminal facts, they made a statement to the effect that they slandered D because it is not good between D and D, and around that time, the Defendant also made the statement to C.