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

If the defendant does not pay the above fine, KRW 100,000.

Punishment of the crime

On August 4, 2014, at the office of D Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as “Co.”), where the Defendant in Daegu-gu, as the actual representative director is located, the Defendant sent by mail a copy of the indictment on the case of forging Private Document, i.e., the violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes (Fraud) where the victim E, who entered into a contract for construction with D, forged a tax invoice under the name of D and D, and received a tax invoice in which the value of supply was increased from the subcontractor and submitted it to D, and thereby fraudulently acquired false construction cost.

Accordingly, the defendant has damaged the reputation of the victim by openly pointing out facts.

Summary of Evidence

1. Partial statement of the defendant;

1. Legal statement of witness G;

1. Statement to E by the police;

1. Copy of the indictment (No. 63323, 6957) at the Daegu District Prosecutors' Office, 2013;

1. A copy of the outer surface of the envelope sent to G, and a copy of the outer surface of the envelope sent to F;

1. Application of statutes governing certified transcript of corporate register;

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

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

1. In the crime of defamation as to the assertion that there is no possibility to spread the provisional payment order under Article 334(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act, “public performance” refers to a state in which many and unspecified persons can recognize it. Thus, even if a fact is distributed to an individual, if there is a possibility of spreading it to an unspecified or many unspecified persons, the requirements

(see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2010Do7497, Sept. 8, 2011). The following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence adopted and examined by this court, namely, F and G, do not talk with any content of the copy of the indictment served by the Defendant.