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

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

Punishment of the crime

On December 2, 2017, the Defendant drafted a false complaint against D using a computer in the Dae-gu B and the office of the Defendant at the end of the time of the war.

The complaint accepted a sample dululululululululization of celebry wastes requested to be repaired by Defendant D around January 22, 2017, and supplied it to Company E., the Defendant novel neglected the sample dulululr without knowledge of the complainant and erred repair by the complainant.

(2) On February 6, 2017, the purport of the following is as follows: (a) around February 6, 2017: (b) the Defendant Nonparty sold to the Defendant for the purpose of tree crushing; (c) sold to the Defendant Defendant Company F, which caused the Plaintiff to have caused the excessive loss, etc. due to the excessive use during installation and use without professional knowledge; and (d) on February 22, 2017, the Defendant accepted the instant mixing with the Defendant, which was requested to repair by the Defendant Company; (c) on February 22, 2017, the Defendant Company did not pay KRW 5,978,000; and (d) even if the Defendant Company supplied the chain term in an amount equivalent to KRW 1,578,00,000, the Defendant Company did not receive the supply of chain term, and (e) the Defendant Company did not have been subject to the supply of the said term, and (e) would have been subject to a strong punishment by deceiving the Defendant Company by habitually deceiving it.”

However, in relation to paragraph (1) of the above complaint, the defendant agreed with D to receive the same amount as the repair cost of sampling when the contract for supply of pulver was well performed, and as such, D did not have any obligation to pay repair cost to the defendant, and D did not have damaged D. In relation to paragraph (2), there was no fact that D exchanged supplied by D to F with limited company and the oil pressure crushing machine owned by the defendant was exchanged with the defendant with the consent of the defendant, and there was no fact that it was sold to F of the company with limited company with limited liability, and (3) in relation to paragraph (1), the defendant was repaired by G company because it was not proper repair of this mixing machine.