In the event that the Defendants did not pay the above fine, the Defendants did not pay the fine.

Defendant

A is the head of H village, and the residents of the same village as Defendant B, Defendant C, Defendant D, Defendant E, and Defendant F are the residents of the same village at the time of Esan.

The Defendants resolved to damage access roads to a swine shed on the ground that malodor occurs in the "K," the operation of the victim J in Y in Y in YY at YY at YY, thereby hindering the passage of vehicles traveling from the said cattle shed and obstructing the said cattle shed's work.

On October 8, 2016, the Defendants came to enter the access road to the livestock shed, which is located in the I of Seosan City, around 12:20 on October 8, 2016, and obstructed the victims from moving pigs to the shot, Seosan, Seosan, the business partner of the victims.

Accordingly, the Defendants conspired to interfere with the victim's stable business.

Summary of Evidence

1. Each legal statement by a witness, L or J;

1. Some statements concerning the Defendants in the police interrogation protocol

1. Each photograph (which means the 13 through 18 pages of evidence);

1. Investigation report (line M telephone investigation for witnesses);

1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes to a report on investigation (N phone investigation for witnesses);

1. Relevant legal provisions and the Defendants’ choice of punishment regarding criminal facts: Articles 314(1) and 314(1)30 of the Criminal Act; and the choice of fines

1. Defendants to be detained in a workhouse: Articles 70(1) and 69(2) of the Criminal Act

1. Defendants of the provisional payment order: the Defendants and the defense counsel’ assertion on the assertion of the Defendants and the defense counsel under Article 334(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act asserted that the Defendants’ act of entering the criminal facts in the judgment of the Defendants constitutes legitimate act by exercising their legitimate rights, as they interfered with the Defendants’ exercise of land ownership by using the access road to the instant K stable (hereinafter “the access road of this case”) owned by the Defendants despite the victim’s alternative contribution to having access to the K.

However, as alleged by the Defendants, the victim used the access road of this case owned by the Defendants with alternative contributions.

Even if the Defendants were to go through any legal procedure.