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

If the defendant does not pay the above fine, 50,000 won shall be paid.

Punishment of the crime

On May 19, 201, the Defendant, as a Korean language teacher and teacher of the E-high school operated by the Dental Institute, was present at the court of Daegu Suwon-dong High Court No. 42, Daegu-dong, Daegu-dong, which filed against the said school juristic person, as a witness of the said court’s dismissal No. 2010Na8465, which filed against the said school juristic person, and taken an oath.

1. On June 5, 2009, the Defendant testified to the question of the Defendant’s agent’s “I do not have any fact that I would like to get off G teachers by cutting down the fat of the G teacher’s fat, raising his hair, and drinking in the middle of the Korean language and teachers in the middle of the 7th century.” The Defendant testified to the question of “I would not have any fact that I would like to get up the fat of G teachers because I would like to get up the fat of the fat,” and “I would have attempted to get up the fat of the fat of the fat of the fat of the fat.”

However, in fact, the defendant flatd G and flatd, flatd and flatd and flatd.

2. The Defendant testified to the Defendant’s agent, “I cannot see the witness,” in the question of “I am on Nov. 4, 2009,” that the Defendant’s agent’s “I am not a witness.”

However, the person who is taking the above photographs was the defendant.

3. The Defendant testified that the Defendant’s agent’s “Plaintiff (F) testified to the question, “Notwithstanding the student’s report before the E-Public Notice, it is unreasonable to take disciplinary action against him/her and there is no long time demonstration.”

However, in fact, the defendant was found to have made a demonstration before the E-Announcement.

4. The Defendant’s agent’s “influences” that the Defendant did not receive the scholarship (or the principal’s class attendance) during the class hours, and that “the witness” did not receive the scholarship, but rather notified the Defendant’s agent’s “influences” in question.