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

As the chairman of the victim group of B stock fraud case, the Defendant, as the chairman of the victim group of B stock fraud case, established and operated a Kakao Sato for the purpose of informing the members of the above group about the above fraud case to the public. The victim C is a person who is in office as the management director of the above company, and the victim D is one of the shareholders of the above company.

1. On July 16, 2016, the Defendant committed a crime against the victim C, on the ground that the victim does not have the mind to defend the company’s position in relation to the instant fraud case, on the ground that the victim does not have the mind to defend the company’s position in relation to the said fraud case, the Defendant warn the victim C of the Kakao’s “the Mad E Sewage.”

v. N. K.O.'s mistake of fraud, but it seems how you can see how you come from the telephone.

I would like to make a recording of one word to sell it to business operators now.

In addition, due to the guyp such guyp such as D. D., the company should not be able to cause the error from this shape to Above, and from the point of time, the company's office's error.

The same year as from that time, including posting comments on comments, stating "influent and grow together";

8. By April 8, 200, by posting three times the victim’s insulting contents in the Kakao Sato, such as [Attachment 1, 2, and 3] Nos. 1, 2, and 3, the victim publicly insultingd the victim.

2. The Defendant, at around 15:00 on August 4, 2016, up to 15:00, posted a statement on the Defendant’s writing posted in the Pakao Scarto, on the ground that the Defendant did not wish to express a non-friendly comments on the Defendant’s letter that the victim posted in the Pakao Scarto, and on the same day, posted a statement on the Defendant’s letter that “Ni is a company and what is a company” in the above Kakaoto, but, on the part of the Kakao that is not in the inside carhouse, n.e., a statement on the Defendant’s writing that “Ni is a company and what is a company,” but Ni. L. and this n. B., at any time, n.e., the Defendant posted a statement on the Defendant’s statement at 15 times from that date until 22:01 on that day, such as [Attachment 4-18].