In the event that the Defendants did not pay the above fines, only 100,000.

On November 17, 2014, at around 02:00, the Defendants set up a victim D (18 taxes) with 27 U.S. boarding on the 14th day (T.T. O.T. 14 back of the department store in Tae-p.T.) and leaving Obaba, and do not return Obaba, if the Defendants did not receive money by November 30 of the M.T.

The term "assigning the cage of the cryp and the cryp to the cryp to the cryp to the cryp to the cryp to the cryp.

As a result, the Defendants conspired in collusion to receive goods from the victim.

Summary of Evidence

1. Legal statement of witness D (the seventh public trial date);

1. Recording of witness D's statement in the fourth public trial protocol;

1. Part of each protocol concerning the interrogation of suspect against the Defendants

1. The legal statements of E by a witness E are inconsistent with the statements of D and the Defendants, the front and rear of the statements are contradictory, and the statements are made contrary to the rule of experience on the day of the instant case, and thus, they cannot be trusted, and rather trust the statements in the statements.

1. The Defendants: Article 2(2) and Article 2(1)3 of the former Punishment of Violences, etc. Act (Amended by Act No. 13718, Jan. 6, 2016); Articles 350(1) and 30 of the Criminal Act (elective of penalty)

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: Article 334(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act

1. Defendants who bear the costs of lawsuit: the main sentence of Article 186(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act