In the event that the Defendants did not pay the above fine, only 100,000 won.

Defendants work in F Co., Ltd. and are representatives of “G” trade unions as employees dismissed.

On July 8, 2015, from around 18:00 to 20:30, the Defendants are going to conduct a demonstration related to the dismissal of the employees of the above company in the H Noh in the country where the country other than the above company employees from around 18:0 to 20:30. The Defendants printed out the victim I, who is the representative director of the above company, the victim J and the victim J, who is an executive officer, and the victim L, who is the head of the personnel team, the victim K, and the head of the general affairs team, the victim M face, who is the victim team leader, in real size, and put out the victim’s name next to it, and then reported that there are many unspecified persons.

In the event of demonstration such as “the person who participated in the demonstration,” the game was carried out by which each victim’s photograph was sent, and Defendant B was sent a new attack directly to the victim’s photograph.

As a result, the Defendants conspired to insult victims openly.

Summary of Evidence

1. The Defendants’ respective legal statements

1. Legal statement of the witness M;

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

1. A complaint;

1. Video CDs;

1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes on investigation reports (the entry into and departure from Korea, confirmation of confinement of suspects);

1. Defendants of the relevant legal provisions concerning criminal facts: Articles 311 and 30 of the Criminal Act

1. Commercial concurrent defendants: Articles 40 and 50 of the Criminal Act

1. Selection of an alternative fine for punishment;

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

1. Defendants of the provisional payment order: The Defendants and the defense counsel’s assertion on the assertion of the Defendants and the defense counsel under Article 334(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act are true that the Defendants committed an act as stated in the facts charged at large local meeting for the purpose of protesting against layoff, etc., but the Defendants’ illegality is dismissed due to acts that do not violate social rules in light of their motive and background, the location and circumstances of the case at the time, the degree of the act, and the degree and context of the act.