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

The Defendants are married couple.

1. On April 28, 2016, the Defendants destroyed a wall by hand on the ground that the victim E (the 59-year-old age) was slick up a boundary fenced with cement brick, and that the Defendants could not enter the F’s dry field, which is the land owned by the Defendants on the boundary of the above branch, was unable to set up an agricultural shed.

As a result, the Defendants jointly damaged the property amounting to KRW 300,000 which is owned by the victim.

2. On December 13, 2016, at the time and place as described in paragraph 1, the Defendants destroyed a boundary fence he stockpiled by hand on the same ground as described in paragraph 1.

As a result, the defendants jointly damaged the property equivalent to 300,000 won in the market price owned by the victim.

1. Defendants’ respective legal statements

1. Statement protocol (E);

1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes to each investigation report (report on attachment, such as receipt certificates and photographs, a certified copy of land register, reporting on attachment of a land use plan, reporting on attachment of a certified copy of cadastral map and a certificate of contents, reporting on attachment

1. Article 2 (2) 1 of the Punishment of Violences, etc. Act and Article 366 of the Criminal Act (Selection of Punishment) concerning the crimes;

1. The former part of Article 37 of the Criminal Act, and Articles 38 (1) 2 and 50 of the same Act, which aggravated concurrent crimes;

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

1. The grounds for sentencing of Article 334(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act for the order of provisional payment are as follows: (a) details of the crime in this case; (b) the Defendants’ property status; (c) the Defendants’ relationship; and (d) the Defendants