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

The defendant is the director of C private teaching institute and D commercial teaching center chief.

On September 29, 2015, the Defendant did not have executed public funds at will by the victim E (52 taxes, women) in Nam-gu, Nam-gu, Seoul Special Metropolitan City around September 29, 2015, but within the said 54 stores, “10,000 won received miscellaneous profits, was used at will by the management complaint, and was reported to the Chairperson in writing.”

I would like to correct the procedures for the erroneously executed public funds of the Director of the Management Office.

“Along with the wrong thoughts of (E) the public funds of the Director of the Office of Management and the erroneously executed cases of public funds,” a printed article indicating the contents of “the honor of the victim was damaged by openly expressing false facts.”

Summary of Evidence

1. Partial statement of the defendant;

1. Statement in the police statement protocol against E;

1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes stating inducements;

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. As to the Defendant’s assertion under Article 334(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act, with regard to KRW 100,000,000,000, out of the above money, the Defendant approved on July 23, 2015 to the disbursement resolution letter, which was deposited as public relations expenses by KT after having installed a sorash for public relations in the D shopping district, it is difficult to view that the facts alleged by the Defendant constitute false facts since the Defendant’s aforementioned act was committed for public interest, while recognizing the fact that KRW 90,00,00, out of the above money was deposited in the ordinary expenses on July 24, 2015, which was the date when the victim E was actually approved on July 22, 2015, which was the date when the disbursement resolution letter was actually approved by the victim E, which was already disbursed after receiving the ex-post approval from the victim E, and thus, it was erroneous for the Defendant’s allegation that the aforementioned act was unlawful since it was for public interest.

However, by each evidence of the ruling.