Defendant shall be punished by a fine of KRW 1,500,000.

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

Punishment of the crime

On July 20, 2017, at around 01:57, the Defendant rejected the Defendant’s answer while exercising the right to refuse to testify on the following grounds: (a) it refers to the victim I (I, 39 years old) who accused the Defendant as a crime of insulting the Kaka Stockholm Group (S) in which approximately 30 people participate; and (b) it is called the victim I (I, I, and I, 39 years old.

In light of the above, the horses were made after being asked at the end, and they were fiffed with fifine, and they were fiffed with fifurine, and the victim were sexually insultd by stating, “A judgment that has been filed by a three-year judgment after being fiffed, but I am. I am.” On the same day, around 02:01 on the same day, it stated, “If a proper judgment is made, if the two-year judgment is made, it would be fiffed by the presiding judge.”

Summary of Evidence

1. Partial statement of the defendant;

1. Legal statement of a witness I;

1. Application of this Act and subordinate statutes by cutting down the Kakao Stockholm course submitted by the complainants;

1. Relevant Article 311 of the Criminal Act concerning criminal facts, the choice of a fine, and the choice of a fine;

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

1. Determination on the Defendant’s assertion under Article 334(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act

1. Among the articles posted at the Kakakao Stockholm Grouping room of the assertion, the word “vem” referred to as “the victim” refers to “the victim arbitrarily deducteds money from other persons to the bees of the bees of the bes of the bes of the bes of the bes of the bes of the bes of the bes of the bes of the bes of the bes of the bes of the bes of the bes of the bes of the bes of the bes of the bes of the bes of the bes of the bes of the bes of the bes of the bes of the bes of the bes of the bes of the bes of the bes of the bes

2. According to the evidence duly adopted and examined by this court, the term “vegetable” used by the Defendant is acknowledged to have the word “vegetable” as an expression “vegetable,” which is used in the phrase “vegetable,” which is the word “vegetable,” which is the word “vegetable,” and used by the Defendant.