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

1. On June 1, 2015, the Defendant, on the 13:30 on June 1, 2015, posted the employees, such as B, etc., to inquire into, and to inquire into, inquiries at the Maart underground warehouse located in Seocheon-si, Seocheon-si, Seocheon-si, the Defendant, at the time of the immediately preceding Defendant’s collision with the victim D and the envelope as a day in which the victim was laid away, and then, during the emotional distressed, the Defendant called “the Defendant, i.e., f., f., f., on the f., on the f., on the f., on the f., 13:30,

However, in fact, the victim had not been divorced after her husband's marriage with her husband and had not been divorced or divorced three times.

As a result, the defendant openly damaged the reputation of the victim by pointing out false facts.

2. On June 3, 2015, at around 15:00 to 16:00, there are many unspecified customers around the entrance of the 1st century, and the Defendant made a public insult of the victim by openly insulting the victim by saying, as a matter of the location of the object display, the Defendant made a horse and dispute with the victim, with the view to “Cho-man, fat-man without knowledge,” while having been in a dispute with the victim.

Summary of Evidence

1. The witness witness D's testimony (the above witness refers to the defendant at the time, not merely referring to the so-called "the so-called "the person in question", and the so-called "the so-called "the so-called "the well-time person in question", the substance of the witness's testimony is true, and the witness's testimony was expressed in light of the fact that the witness's testimony was made in detail when he was investigated by the police, even though it was not well memoryed about how much time passed, and how much time has not passed since he was involved in the investigation by the police." When the witness is investigated by the police, the witness testified that "the defendant stated "the person in question" and clearly and clearly stated that he was "the person in question" and that he did not know about at the time, the testimony of the above witness is true, and the testimony of the above witness was made in light of the witness's attitude.