(b) Damage to property;

Residence

Reference domicile

2. (a) b) 200

Residence

Nationality

Defendants shall be punished by fine of KRW 1,00,000.

In the event that the Defendants did not pay the above fine, each of the 100,000 won was converted into one day, the Defendants shall be confined in the workhouse.

In order to order the provisional payment of an amount equivalent to the above fine.

The Defendants, as husband and wife, had been dissatisfied with the usual complaint that 00 was against 'the 3rd floor of 00 - 00 - 00 - 00 - 00 - 00 - 00 - 1200 - 00 - 00 - due to frequent mar between the Defendants and their members' access prohibition and expulsion.'

1. The Defendants’ co-principal

At around 10:40 on January 26, 2014, when the two and a large number of believers are gathered, the Defendants interfered with the worship of the 00 and the members of the 00 association with the large interest of the knife (liar: false horse dispute) and the knife (the homicide: the homicide).

Accordingly, the Defendants conspired and interfered with towing.

2. Defendant 1

A. At around 10:40 on November 10, 2013, the Defendant: (a) when the victims and multiple believers gather and proceed with the towing of sexual intercourse, the Defendant entered the wedding distribution and obstructed the worship of the members who gather in this area, by entering the wedding distribution. (b) The Defendant: (c) determined that the Defendant was using the large amount of scam, such as scam (scam: scam: scam: scam); (d) scam (stiler: homicide); and (e) scam (stil: homicide) scam (stil: homicide); and (e) scamscam (scam) 00 and that of the members who gather in this area.

B. On January 19, 2014, at around 40: (a) around 10:40, the Defendant: (b) entered a preliminary distribution in which many members gather in order to proceed with the worship of sexual intercourse; and (c) interfered with the worship supervised by 00 while leaving a large amount of her intention to kill a person.

3. The defendant 20

On February 9, 2014: around 40: around 40, the Defendant destroyed the property owned by the victim of the instant church by leaving the gasoline prepared in advance at two parts of the total market value of approximately KRW 300,000,000.

Summary of Evidence

1. Defendants’ respective legal statements

1. Legal statement of 00 witnesses;

1. A written appraisal;

1. Video data (dong image CDs);

1. Investigation reports (Cinematographic Data Reading);

Application of Statutes

1. Article applicable to criminal facts;

Defendant In-OO: Articles 158 and 30 of the Criminal Act; Articles 158 and 30 of the Criminal Act; Articles 158 and 30 of the Criminal Act (a point of interference with worship); Article 366 of the Criminal Act (a point of causing damage to property); Selection of each fine.

1. Aggravation for concurrent crimes;

Defendants: former part of Article 37, Article 38(1)2, and Article 50 of the Criminal Act

1. Detention in a workhouse;

Defendants: Articles 70 and 69(2) of the former Criminal Act (Amended by Act No. 12575, May 14, 2014)

1. Order of provisional payment;

Defendants: Determination on the Defendants and their defense counsel’s assertion under Article 334(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act

The Defendants and defense counsel asserts to the effect that this constitutes a legitimate act under Article 20 of the Criminal Act, since they come to an act of obstruction of worship of this case to prevent the Defendants from unfairly deprived of their rights to participate in the sexually political process.

The term "act which does not violate the social rules" under Article 20 of the Criminal Act refers to the act which can be accepted in light of the overall spirit of legal order, or the social ethics or social norms in its hinterland. Whether a certain act is justified as an act which does not violate the social rules, and thus, the illegality should be excluded, based on the specific circumstances, and it should be determined individually and reasonably under the concrete circumstances. Thus, in order to recognize such a legitimate act, the requirements such as the motive or justification of the act, the legitimacy of the act, the means or method of the act, the reasonableness of the means or method, the balance of the benefits of protection and the benefit of infringement, the urgency, and the supplementary nature that there is no other means or method other than the act (see Supreme Court Decision 2003Do300, Sept. 26, 2003).

In light of the above legal principles, even if there was an unfair infringement as alleged by the Defendants, there was only a legitimate dispute settlement procedure, such as seeking correction in accordance with the church internal rules, and as such, the Defendants’ obstruction of worship in this case cannot be seen as an act to prevent such infringement. Thus, the Defendants’ obstruction of worship in this case did not meet the requirements of reasonableness and supplement of means. Therefore, the above assertion by the Defendants and the defense counsel is without merit.