A shall be punished by a fine for negligence of KRW 3,000,000, and by a fine of KRW 1,000,000.

The Defendants respectively.

On April 12, 2015, from around 10:30 to 10:58 of the same day, the Defendants conspired in collusion with the victim F in F, who is engaged in the business of worshiping, transferring, and reporting to a wood shed, etc., Defendant A prevented the victim from leaving the victim from having to have to have to have to have to have to have to have to have to have to have to have to have to have to have to have to have to have to have to have to have to have to have to have to have to have to have to have to have to have to have to have to have to have to have to heed, in order to have the victim start to be stationed at around 11:00 the same day. Defendant B prevented the victim from having to have to enter to the to have to have to have to have to have to have to have to have to have to have to have to have to have to have to have to have to have to have to have to have

Summary of Evidence

1. Defendants’ respective legal statements

1. Each police suspect interrogation protocol (including F statements) against the Defendants

1. The prosecutor's statement concerning the F;

1. Each police statement to F, H, I, J, and K;

1. USB (hereinafter referred to as the “USB”);

1. On-site photographs (the defendants claim that, at the time of the instant case, the Defendants’ act does not constitute interference with the business since the victims were dismissed by the Lo's association or allowed to leave the church, and therefore the Defendants did not have the qualification to be present at the time of the instant case. On the other hand, in a case where a dispute arises between the believers of the church surrounding the validity of the alteration of the church to which they belong and the church activities, such as worship, are carried out by two groups, barring special circumstances until the dispute is finally resolved in accordance with the effective legal measures, etc., even if some believers's worship activities, transfer of worship for them, and use of church facilities for them should be legally protected, and such dispute shall not be resolved in a violent way (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2007Do8899, Feb. 28, 2008; Supreme Court Decision 2007Do899, Feb. 28, 2008).