In the event that the Defendants did not pay the above fine, each of them is 100.

The Defendants are the mother of Defendant A as the mother of Defendant B.

From October 18, 2017 to around 13:25 to around 13:40, the Defendants sought a refund of KRW 2.40,00 of the national health insurance premium paid by Defendant B by credit card around August 8, 2017. However, the Defendant’s “insurance premium paid by credit card” from the victim D, who is an employee in charge of collecting the national health insurance premium of the National Health Insurance of the Republic of Korea, is not revoked until the date of payment.

“I would like to listen to the victim’s free will to receive national health insurance premiums by suppressing the victim’s free will, and then I would like to say that Defendant B would not have the reason to cancel the internal card.

Defendant A, who reads “A” and reads the card to the victim, and Defendant A, who reads the card to the victim, is responsible for the settlement of the check, and the refund is made.

In the absence of refund, I would like to cut back scarcitys.

The employees of the National Health Insurance Corporation are required to report to the police when there are about 15 minutes of disturbance, such as provoking the height of the victim and smuggling the body of the victim.

Around 1,00,000 won, the market value of the victim's possession on the books of the defective victim, lost with one cellphone (No. 1).

As a result, the Defendants conspired with and by force interfered with the collection of victim's national health insurance premiums and civil petition counseling.

Summary of Evidence

1. The Defendants’ respective legal statements

1. Each legal statement of witness D and E;

1. Each police statement made to D or E;

1. Police seizure records;

1. Each internal investigation report and investigation report (including the photograph of the damaged place) [the Defendants and defense counsel] asserted to the effect that the obstruction of business cannot be established on the grounds that the Defendants did not have any desire or awareness about D as stated in the facts constituting a crime, and there was no fact that D did not have any harming D’s body.

(b).