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

On August 15, 2016, the Defendant: (a) at the D community hall located in Gangnam-si, Gangnam-si, around 19:50 on August 15, 2016 to 20:10; and (b) the fact is that the Victim E does not interfere with the purpose of agriculture of D to F Company G employees.

There is no fact that the victim did not speak, and there was no objection against the expansion of the passage gambling from the two lanes to the four-lanes. Moreover, despite the fact that the Defendant did not interfere with the receipt of the subsidy for the closure of the livestock industry by the victim or the Defendant did not help the Defendant, the Defendant did not receive the subsidy for the closure of the livestock industry, i.e., “the victim was excavated from the FF company for the purpose of agriculture, but the head of the Tong (the name of the victim) would not bring the victim to the F company.

It is how the head of the Tong can do so.

F Company G so that F Company G may do so

"The head of the Tong opposed to the creation of a 4th line gambling."

"A livestock industry can be closed, but it was not a subsidy for the closure of the livestock industry."

The head of the Tong has damaged the honor of the victim by openly pointing out false facts by speaking in a large voice.

Summary of Evidence

1. Protocols concerning the examination of partial police officers of the defendant;

1. Each legal statement of the witness E, H, I, J, and K;

1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes on the report of investigation;

1. Relevant Article 307 of the Criminal Act concerning criminal facts, Article 307 (2) of the Criminal Act concerning the selection of punishment, and selection of fines;

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

1. Determination on the assertion by the Defendant and his defense counsel under Article 334(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act

1. The gist of the claim is that the injured party did not perform his duties as the head of the Tong, and the community residents expressed their complaints on the head of the Tong. Thus, the above act by the defendant is a justifiable act that does not violate the social rules.

2. Determination

A. The "act that does not violate social norms" as defined in Article 20 of the Criminal Act is placed in the spirit of the entire legal order or its hinterland.