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

At around 02:05 on August 18, 2017, the Defendant visited the said car page by using the clinic called “D” on the Internet B car page “C” in which many unspecified people can access and access, and after referring to “F,” the victim E’s clinic, i.e., the victim E., whether the inside is disclosed or not, i.e., all public notice source, g, H, and H law firm I, Maz.

The victim openly insultingd the victim by putting up comments on the comments, “F or 46 to the end of 46 to the end of the F new public book,” which read “weaking” in practice.

Summary of Evidence

1. Partial statement of the defendant;

1. Legal statement by the witness J;

1. Statement made by the police for victims E;

1. A written complaint and a written statement;

1. Evidential materials;

1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes for confirmation of members of a C Caf website and a partner of connection;

1. Article 311 of the Criminal Act applicable to the facts constituting an offense and Article 311 of the choice of punishment;

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

3. The defendant 1 prepared comments on the defendant's assertion under Article 334 (1) of the Criminal Procedure Act (the grounds for conviction) and deleted the comments as stated in its reasoning. The defendant 3 minutes later, and the defendant 1 asserts that the new wall hours of the above carpet are merely 2-3 persons, and there is no performance.

However, the following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and investigated by this Court, i.e., the carpet up to approximately 68,000 members, and even according to the Defendant’s assertion, the connection appears to always exist, and the victim posted a notice from 02:0 to 15:00 on the date the Defendant’s comments on the Defendant’s comments on the instant complaint were rendered.

In light of the fact that the J, the above Kafin member, testified that he is memory of the comments in the A.M. after the time of the erosion, etc., the defendant written his comments as stated in its reasoning, and thus, he is unspecified.