1. Defendant shall be punished by a fine of 2,000,000 won;

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

Punishment of the crime

Around September 2012, the Defendant: (a) around 2012, at the C Hospital run by Da himself, called “D suffers a big pain by opening up money in conspiracy with her husband while E driving away; (b) demanding money; and (c) giving a hospital a complicated male relation with F; and (d) around that time, at the said C Hospital, the Defendant called “G was a very stoken that E driving away from Na,” and at the said C Hospital, “A was suffering a big pain by opening a dial amount of money with her husband while driving away from her husband and her husband.” (a) demanded money from her husband and her husband, and she took a variety of stoves with her husband and her husband.” At F, the Defendant called “F was complicated and complicated.”

However, in fact, the defendant and the victim E were in an internal relationship and had a sexual relationship by agreement, and the victim did not unilaterally scam the defendant, and there was no fact that the victim demanded money from the hospital operated by the defendant, and there was no fact that the victim was in an internal relationship with the other male.

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

Summary of Evidence

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

1. The police statement concerning G;

1. Application of the Acts and subordinate statutes to the complaint;

1. Relevant provisions of the Criminal Act and Article 307 (2) of the Criminal Act concerning the selection of penalties;

1. Of concurrent crimes, the former part of Article 37, Articles 38 (1) 2 and 50 of the Criminal Act;

1. Articles 70(1) and 69(2) of the Criminal Act (100,000 won a day);

1. Article 334 (1) of the Criminal Procedure Act of the provisional payment order;

1. As to the assertion of the defendant and his defense counsel under Article 186(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act, the defendant and his defense counsel did not state the defendant's words identical to the facts charged to D and G, and even if they did.

Even to the effect that it is not guilty due to the lack of performance.

However, D and G's legal statements are specific and consistent.