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

The Defendants did not pay each of the above fines.

Punishment of the crime

At around 07:50 on September 26, 2012, the Defendants: (a) sought D’s mother from Kimpo-si, Kimpo-si, 227, and 904, where Defendant E and D’s wife F are living in the victim E and D’s wife F, and divided them into two pages, but the victims were not opening the door, and the victims were concealed in the stairs that the victims did not open the door to attend the door to the work; (b) and (c) invaded the victims’ residence by entering the victim’s dwelling jointly with the victim’s house.

Summary of Evidence

1. Defendant's legal statement;

1. Witnesses F and E each testimony;

1. Each police interrogation protocol against the Defendants

1. Application of the police protocol of statement to F;

1. Article 319 (1) and Article 30 of the Criminal Act concerning the relevant criminal facts, the choice of punishment, and the choice of fines;

1. Articles 70 and 69 (2) of the Criminal Act for detention in a workhouse;

1. Determination as to the assertion by the Defendants and their defense counsel under Article 334(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act, respectively, of the provisional payment order

1. The summary of the argument is that Defendant A was found in the victims' house and entered the entrance, but did not enter the ward, and he also sought to confirm whether D was in the house, and there was no intention to enter the residence. Furthermore, Defendant A was an object of recovery of claims at the time of collection of claims, and thus, illegality is dismissed as a justifiable act.

Defendant

B along with Defendant A, the victim's house was found to have been on the front door.

Therefore, the Defendants should be pronounced not guilty.

2. According to the evidence above, F and E made a statement to the effect that the facts stated in this Act or the investigation agency are consistent, specific, and objective rationality. Thus, it is not found that the contents of the statement are very consistent, specific, and specific. Thus, the facts of the judgment can be sufficiently recognized, and even if the defendants do so.