A and C shall be punished by each fine of KRW 1,500,000, and Defendant B and D shall be punished by each fine of KRW 1,000,000.

The Defendants are the defendants.

Defendant

A around 18:40 on August 9, 2013, on the ground that the victim G in Suwon-si F does not refund the clothes of Defendant C at the Hm-si site operated by the victim G in Suwon-si, the victim I, who is an employee of the above store, wanted to be "the same bitch bitch bitch bitch bitch bitch bitch bitch", and Defendant B was able to avoid disturbance over about 40 minutes, including, but not limited to, a great sound before the KMter.

Defendant

C, at around 20:50 on the same day, the above G was found to be out of the store, and the Defendant D was called as “B,” and the Defendant D was able to engage in funeral services in a solitary way from the floor of a narrow water source. In such a sense, the Defendant D was unable to avoid disturbance inside and outside of the store for about 30 minutes, such as “I will like to engage in funeral services in the solitary way.”

Accordingly, the Defendants jointly interfered with the victims' clothes sales business by force.

Summary of Evidence

1. Defendants’ respective legal statements

1. A witness I and each legal statement in G;

1. Some statements of each of the suspect interrogation records of Defendant A, B, and D by the prosecution;

1. Application of each of the police suspect interrogation protocol to the Defendants

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

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

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

1. Determination on whether the act constitutes a threat of force and a justifiable act

A. The alleged act of Defendant A and B cannot be deemed to have reached the extent to which they could control the free will of the victims, and the right to request the exchange of defective articles, which are the basic rights of the consumers of Defendant C.