When the defendant does not pay the above fine, 100,000 won.

The defendant is the head of the office of management of DNA apartment in Sejong Special Self-Governing City C.

On July 3, 2015, at around 09:05, the Defendant requested perusal of the details of the expenditure of apartment management expenses within the D Management Office located in the Special Self-Governing City of Sejong, Metropolitan Autonomous City on July 3, 2015, and publicly insulting the victim E, F, G, and H “I am satch satch satch satch satch satch satch satch satch sat.”

Summary of Evidence

1. Each legal statement of witness E, F, H and G;

1. The sound of the CD;

1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes to a criminal investigation report (in cases of attaching photographs to site explanations);

1. Article 311 of the Criminal Act concerning the facts constituting an offense;

1. Articles 40 and 50 of the Criminal Act of the Commercial Competition;

1. Selection of an alternative fine for punishment;

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

1. Article 334 (1) of the Criminal Procedure Act concerning the order of provisional payment;

1. Determination as to the assertion of the defendant and his/her defense counsel under the main sentence of Article 186(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act

1. It was merely called “humping during a trial” as the argument-based confluence, and did not desire the victims.

2. In light of the sound of the CD, it is recognized that the Defendant stated that the Defendant “I ambling from Ah the starting date, I amb from I amb.”

Witness

According to the legal statements of E, F, H and G and the sound of CDs, the Defendant, at the time, was dissatisfied with the victim’s request for the inspection of documents by finding the victim from the invasion to the management office. The victims were in front of the civil petition unit, and the Defendant was in front of the civil petition unit, and the distance was 2 meters away from the civil petition unit. The Defendant saw the fact that the victim was able to have been able to take care of the victim’s brut before the civil petition unit, and that the Defendant was able to take care of the victim’s brut, and that the sound brut was the size of the victim’s brut that the victim could have sufficiently heard. In full view of the conflict between the Defendant and the victim, the distance between the Defendant and the victim, the Defendant