Punishments against the Defendants shall be prescribed by each fine of KRW 2,00,000.

The Defendants did not pay each of the above fines.

Punishment of the crime

Defendant

A and Defendant B are the believers of the E church located in Gangdong-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government, and the victim F is the member of the above church.

1. On February 1, 2012, the Defendants: (a) conspired with the victim F to engage in the distribution of tugboats; (b) on the ground that the victim F entered the distribution of tugboats; (c) the Defendant A shot up the heating device in the distribution of tugboats; and (d) the Defendant B interfered with the victim’s towing by photographing the victim’s towing surface.

2. On April 28, 2012, from around 15:00 to 16:30 of the same day, the Defendants conspired to interfere with the operation of the victim’s church by force by preventing the victim from entering the entrance door of the church set up by the victim F in order to open the entrance door of the church set up by the victim F at the end of the said church building.

Summary of Evidence

1. Each legal statement of witness F and G;

1. All on-site photographs;

1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes (Seoul East Eastern District Court 201Kahap2113, 2012Kahap1906, 2012Kahap1932, 2012Kahap1932, a court of the same court);

1. Relevant provisions of the Criminal Act and Articles 158, 314 (1) and 30 of the Criminal Act concerning criminal facts, the choice of fines, and the choice of fines;

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

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

1. Article 334 (1) of the Criminal Procedure Act, each of the provisional payment orders;

1. The defendants of the reasons for sentencing under Article 186(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act, which bear litigation costs, committed each of the crimes in this case by denying the status of F, while neglecting the decision of provisional disposition, etc. (the defendants did not know about the contents even if they were not parties to the case) although they consistently recognized the status of F as a standing pastor of the E church in the case of provisional disposition, etc.