Defendants shall be punished by a fine of four million won.

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

Punishment of the crime

1. On March 29, 2016, from around 12:50 to 13:25 of the same day, the Defendants’ co-principaled Defendants: (a) at the E shop operated by the victim D in Ulsan-gu, Ulsan-gu; (b) Defendant A, on the ground that the victim introduced male to his female and gave public notice to the female, she took a boom of the victim’s boom while taking the victim’s bath at a large sound; and (c) Defendant B, as a result, she spits tobacco on the floor, spits the victim’s arms on the floor while taking the booming and taking the victim’s arms out of the above place.

As a result, the Defendants conspired with and by force interfered with the victim's excessive business operations.

2. At around 15:20 of the same day, Defendant B, who was investigated by the police station on the victim’s report at the above E E shop, was damaged by the Defendant’s walking a bridge, which was displayed in front of the above boom, and caused the destruction of the soil equivalent to KRW 10,000,000 at the market price of the vehicle.

Summary of Evidence

1. Defendants’ respective legal statements

1. Application of the police statement law to D;

1. Article applicable to criminal facts;

A. Defendants: Articles 314(1) and 30 of the Criminal Act

B. Defendant B: Article 366 of the Criminal Act

1. Of concurrent crimes (Defendant B), the former part of Article 37, Article 38 (1) 2 and Article 50 of the Criminal Act;

1. The defendants committed the crime as stated in its holding by finding out the victim in a planned manner in the sentencing of Articles 70(1) and 69(2) of the Criminal Act; the defendants committed the crime under Article 70(1) and 69(2) of the Criminal Act; the methods and contents of the obstruction of business are very poor; the defendant A committed several times of violence; the defendant Eul committed the crime under Article 70(2) of the same day after being investigated by the police due to the obstruction of business by the obstruction of business in the judgment in the case of the defendant B; however, the defendants are against the defendants; the degree of interference with business and the scale of substantial damage; and other circumstances are considered as favorable to the defendant's age, character