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

Although the Defendant did not have had the Victim C with the Defendant’s husband D, or had caused the Victim C to die, the Defendant left two police officers, etc. dispatched from around April 21, 2017 to around 01:00 the next day from around 23:00 to around the residence of the victim in the Korean War F, in the context of two police officers, etc., who were called up in the vicinity of the victim’s residence in the Korean War F, the Defendant left the victim for a period of up to 01:00. This is what is the male and wind of South Korea.

There is no choice but to see the sound. The first wind year, however, fin's fin's fin's fin's fin's fin's free decision.

“The victim’s reputation was undermined by openly pointing out false facts.”

Summary of Evidence

1. Partial statement of the defendant;

1. A protocol concerning the examination of partially the police officers of the accused;

1. Part of the witness C’s legal statement and the witness G’s legal statement;

1. Investigation report (Details of interviews with reference witnesses), investigation report (on-site situations at the time of dispatch of the time of dispatch of the Si vision incident);

1. Recording notes (three copies);

1. 112 Reporting case handling table;

1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes to photographs (including the place of occurrence);

1. Article 307 (2) of the Criminal Act applicable to the relevant criminal facts and Article 307 (2) of the choice of punishment;

1. Article 70(1) and Article 69(2) of the Criminal Act to attract a workhouse;

1. Determination as to the defense counsel’s assertion under Article 334(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act of the Provisional Payment Order

1. The summary of the argument is that the Defendant made the same speech as the facts charged, but there was no performance when considering the time and place of the speech, and the person who was present at the time of the speech, and the Defendant did not have awareness that the content of his statement was false. ② The Defendant did not have awareness of the content of his statement, and ③ The police officer dispatched upon receipt of the report was made the same speech while explaining the purpose of his/her victim, and thus, constitutes a justifiable act that does not violate social rules.

2. Judgment by issue

A. According to the evidence adopted and examined by this court as to the assertion regarding performance, the defendant is charged.