In the event that the Defendants did not pay the above fine, each of them is 100.

Defendants are currently members of the E church and present E church and F church are in dispute.

At around 11:00 on August 23, 2015, the Defendants conspired with two times to cut off the F church pastors of the E church in order to prevent electricity from entering the tugboat distribution unit when there are more than 20 members of the F church H from being supplied with electricity, and put them out of the tugboat distribution.

Accordingly, the Defendants conspired and interfered with towing.

Summary of Evidence

1. The legal statements of Defendant C and some of the legal statements of Defendant A and B

1. Legal statement of the witness H;

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

1. Application of video CD-related Acts and subordinate statutes;

1. Relevant provisions of the Criminal Act and Articles 158 and 30 of the Criminal Act concerning the selection of criminal facts;

1. Article 70(1) and Article 69(2) of the Criminal Act for the attraction of a workhouse;

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

1. The Defendants alleged that there was no conspiracy to commit the crime in the judgment, and there was a fact between Defendant A and B with wireless microphones, but due to that fact, there was no interference with the worship of the members who concealed H wood shed (hereinafter “the other party members”).

2. Determination

A. At least two co-offenders who are jointly engaged in a crime do not legally require any type of punishment, but only two or more persons commit a combination of intent to jointly process a crime and realize a crime. Although there is no process of the whole conspiracy, the conspiracy is established if the combination of will is made in order or impliedly among several persons, even if there is no process of the whole conspiracy.

In addition, strict proof is required to recognize such a conspiracy, but if the defendant denies the conspiracy, which is a subjective element of the crime, it is highly related to the nature of the object.