In the event that the Defendants did not pay the above fine, the Defendants did not pay the fine.

Defendants are the persons who are siblings.

On May 12, 2016, at around 20:57, the Defendants thought that the Victim E (Woo, 37 years of age) son’s son’s son’s son’s son’s son’s son’s son’s son’s son’s son’s son’s son’s son’s son’s son’s son’s son’s son’s son’s son’s son’s son’s son’s son’s son’s son’s son’s son’s son’s son’s son’s son’s son’s son’s son’s son’s son’s son’s son’s son’s son’s son’s son’s son’

Accordingly, the Defendants conspired to insult the victim publicly.

Summary of Evidence

1. Defendants’ respective legal statements

1. The protocol concerning the interrogation of each police suspect against the Defendants

1. Statement made by the police for E;

1. A complaint filed by E;

1. A detailed statement of reported case processing; and

1. Efagating a video course;

1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes to a criminal investigation report (verification of D video images), investigation report (to make a witness G telephone conversations), investigation report (to make a witness H telephone conversations);

1. Relevant Articles 311 and 30 of the Criminal Act and the Defendants’ choice of punishment regarding criminal facts: Articles 311 and 30 of the Criminal Act and the choice of fines

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