If the defendant does not pay the above fine, 50,000 won shall be paid.

The defendant is the founder of a school juristic person D who has served as the president of the E University.

On September 9, 2011, the Defendant adopted the Defendant as a witness in relation to the suspicions related to the E University Private School disputes in the course of the inspection of the state administration conducted by the Education, Science and Technology Committee of the National Assembly on the same day at the office of the Defendant in Seoul Central-gu, Seoul, and the Ministry of Education, Science and Technology on the same day.

9. On 10:00, a letter of request for attendance of a witness under the name of the chairman of the National Assembly Education Science and Technology Council to be present at the inspection site was delivered through G, the Defendant’s ASEAN.

Nevertheless, the defendant did not appear as a witness without good cause.

Summary of Evidence

1. The statements of witnesses H and I in the third protocol of trial;

1. Partial statement of witness G in the third protocol of trial;

1. A written accusation against a witness not present to inspect the state administration (a witness and a summons receipt of a summons);

1. Investigation report (the report to confirm the contents of the accusation submitted by the complainant);

1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes to investigation reports (execution of a written permission to request the provision of data confirming the fact of communications and report on the results thereof);

1. Article 12 (1) of the Act on Testimony, Appraisal, etc. concerning Criminal Facts at the National Assembly.

1. Articles 70 and 69 (2) of the Criminal Act for the detention of a workhouse;

1. As to the Defendant’s assertion of Article 334(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act, the Defendant asserted that there was a justifiable reason for the Defendant’s failure to appear as a witness, on the ground that he/she was aware of the fact that he/she should attend the National Assembly after being hospitalized in the hospital due to urology, etc. on September 15, 2011.

As acknowledged by each of the above evidence, it is difficult to obtain the reasons for late delivery on September 15, 201, on the following grounds: (a) even though G, the Defendant’s son, received a summons of a witness on September 9, 201, he/she was hospitalized in the Defendant on September 15, 201.