The Defendants did not pay each of the above fines.

Defendant

A, Defendant B, and Defendant C are the parents and their daughters, and Defendant D are the guests of Defendant B’s accommodation, and Defendant G is the victim H is the relatives of Defendant B’s Chon-ro.

On October 2, 2013, the Defendants: around 20:08, at the entrance of the house entrance of the victim G (L, 72 years old) and H (L, 39 years old), the victim H was under the name of the father and J (the father) of the victim H; at the present time, the Defendants were jointly purchasing approximately 2,542 square meters in the name of the Defendant B at the time of the acquisition of approximately 33 years before the victim H, the Defendants demanded the transfer of the real estate under the name of the Defendant. Defendant B entered the victim’s seat on the front phone screen as if the victims were mixed with, and divided the first person into, the victim’s G, and the victim’s 6 persons, including the Defendants and the two children of H, and found the Defendants as Defendant C’s 1 and the victim’s 5 years of intrusion.

Summary of Evidence

1. Each legal statement of the witness H and G;

1. Each police statement of H and G;

1. Investigation reports (Attachment of recording records at the time of committing the crime);

1. Application of CD 1 statute

1. The Defendants of relevant criminal facts: Article 2 (2) and (1) 1 of the Punishment of Violences, etc. Act and Article 319 (1) of the Criminal Act

1. Defendants who choose to impose punishment: Each selective fine

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

1. Defendants of the provisional payment order: Determination on the Defendants’ assertion under Article 334(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act

1. The summary of the assertion was merely entered the house with the consent of the victims.

In addition, the Defendants are the defendants.