Where the defendant fails to pay the above fine, one hundred thousand won shall be one day.

From December 15, 2015, the Defendant’s husband D worked as an oriental medical doctor at the first floor of the F building in Gangnam-gu Seoul, Seoul, which was operated by the victim E, from around December 15, 2015, and was unable to work for the above Council member from around May 2016 due to the merger of urology, and accordingly, was notified of dismissal from the Defendant on August 2016.

On August 24, 2016, the defendant found the above her husband D with her husband D, and demanded the victim to pay wages for three months as an allowance for dismissal, but the victim was rejected from the victim.

Accordingly, around August 25, 2016, around 20:24, the Defendant’s title “H” posted on the fourths of a person who was unable to obtain his/her name on his/her off-line in Seoul Special Metropolitan City (hereinafter referred to as “H”) is not well-known by G E representatives.

(B) On the same day, a notice posted the comments “I” on the 20:54 No. 156 of the same day, and continuously posted the comments on “I” on the NAB Blog, and on August 26, 2016, a notice posted on the NAB Blog’s “I” on the NAB Blog’s “I” on the NAB Blogs. In addition, on August 26, 2016, a notice posted on the NAB Blog’s “K” comments on the NAB Blogs.

Summary of Evidence

1. Statement made by the police for E;

1. The comments, etc. on the Nene Blab Brogs;

1. Each defense counsel's written opinion;

1. A statement of evidence submission;

1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes to supplement complaints;

1. Relevant Article 311 of the Criminal Act, the choice of punishment, and the choice of fines for the crime;

1. The former part of Article 37 of the Criminal Act, and Articles 38 (1) 2 and 50 of the same Act, which aggravated concurrent crimes;

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 (a) of the Criminal Procedure Act provides that the defendant and his/her defense counsel shall not be insulting expressions or a political party act, but shall not be related to the defendant's writing, the main text, etc. recorded in the records of this case (the main text does not mention the facts that the defendant was not mentioning the facts that could evaluate the victim's real ability, and the defendant's individual has no experience of being treated by the victim) and the defendant's husband.