A A shall be punished by a fine of KRW 1.5 million, and Defendant B shall be punished by a fine of KRW 200,000.

The above fine is imposed against the Defendants.

Defendant A is the head of a victim D religious organization E church, and Defendant B is the representative of the above church.

On April 8, 2012, the Defendants: (a) around April 8, 2012, the F of the above church did not follow the disposition of the withdrawal from the church against the Defendants; and (b) the Defendants were willing to interfere with the affairs of the above church

1. Defendant A

A. On April 29, 2012, the Defendant attached to the signboard of the said church in front of the Daegu Jung-gu G church, stating the phrase “as of May 1, 2012, it is difficult to establish a religious order and leave the order any longer because he/she is unable to cope with the mission of the church, and thus, close the order.”

In fact, however, there was no fact that the above church was closed as the contents of the above inducement.

Accordingly, the defendant spreads false facts to interfere with the victim's work.

B. On June 15, 2012, the Defendant removed the signboard “D religious organization E branch of the church” before the said church, and prevented other persons from finding out the signboard by placing the signboard in an open door, and created a letter “H branch” with a color tape on the front page of the signboard.

Accordingly, the defendant interfered with the victim's work by force.

2. Around June 15, 2012, Defendant B removed the signboard “D religious organization E society”, which contracted with the above church, and obstructed the victim’s work by leaving the signboard back to the entrance and exit door so that the lower part of the signboard may be left above.

On September 30, 2011, the Defendant confirmed on September 30, 201, that the notice of the result of the disposition of the accusation by the Seoul Central District Public Prosecutor's Office, stating "3 million won as the result of the disposition of the accusation," was posted on September 30, 201, while the Defendant opened and operated the Bano 1 next patrolman on April 201.

The Defendant is publicly aware of the fact by posting the output of the above notice at the following time and place: