Defendant shall be punished by a fine of one million won.

If the defendant does not pay the above fine, KRW 100,000.

Punishment of the crime

The defendant is the principal of the alternative school called E-school in Dongjak-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government D.

The defendant is going to the above school by the children of the Victim F (M, 47 years of age).

After the withdrawal, there was a conflict between victim FF, victim G (n, 39 years of age) and tuition fees, and the victim F was accused of embezzlement. On April 5, 2013, the above E-School Library prepared a document verifying that “I would file a petition with the Prosecutor of the Supreme Prosecutors’ Office in the Prosecutor’s Office at the Office of Public Prosecutor’s Office at which G would work, if I would not withdraw a provisional attachment or embezzlement complaint, I would bring a petition to the Audit Office at the National Health Insurance Corporation’s Office at which G would work, and that I would bring a petition with the Prosecutor’s Office at the Office of Public Prosecutor’s Office at the Office of Public Prosecutor’s Office at the National Ombudsman’s Office at the Board of Civil Ombudsman’s Office at the same time with legal knowledge to cause damage to the citizens and E-school, and then, two Yongsan-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government, the victims’ post at the Office of the victims, sent it by mail at the office of the victims to the National Health Insurance Corporation and the Seoul Southern District Public Prosecutor’s Office at

Summary of Evidence

1. Each legal statement of the witness H (titled before the opening of the name: F) and G;

1. The police statement of F and G;

1. A complaint;

1. Application of the statutes governing content certification;

1. Relevant Article 283 (1) of the Criminal Act concerning facts constituting an offense and Article 283 (1) of the Criminal Act concerning the selection of punishment;

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

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

1. The defendant and his defense counsel's assertion on the claim of the defendant and his defense counsel under Article 334 (1) of the Criminal Procedure Act alleged that the defendant's act constitutes a legitimate act and constitutes a "statement of opinion" to the extent permitted by social norms. However, the defendant's act is deemed to be unlawful. However, the whole evidence of the above content is acknowledged by the evidence of the judgment.