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

2. The Defendants did not pay the above fines.

Punishment of the crime

Defendant

On October 11, 2009, at the time of the integration of the IF church buildings and fixtures with the members of the IF church (Gu's seat: Kimhae-si G) and the IF church, which had been a member of the IF church, had been a member of the IF church (Gu's seat): Defendant A, and B, from that time to February 201, intended to establish the IF church on the ground that Defendant C was a member of the I church, on the ground that the I church was a member of the I church.

On June 4, 201, at around 14:00, the Defendants jointly intruded the victim Iropian G into the main entrance and exit key of the instant preliminary distribution, and damaged it by removing five of the market price of the victim Iropian, which is owned by the victim Iropian, from the market price.

Summary of Evidence

1. Defendants’ partial statement

2. Each legal statement of the witness H and J;

3. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes to the accusation, identification number certificate (IS), certificate of affiliation, real estate lease contract (K), Literacy local council (integrated approval), report on church property fixtures, accounting books, field photographs, certificate of employment (C), opinion of the Central Audit and Inspection Committee on the complainants of A house office, confirmation (integrated approval), and report on investigation (attached to precedents);

1. Article 2 (2) and Article 2 (1) 1 of the Punishment of Violences, etc. Act regarding the facts constituting an offense, Article 319 of the Criminal Act, Article 2 (2) and Article 2 (1) 1 of the Punishment of Violences, etc. Act, Article 366 of the Criminal Act, Article 366 of the Criminal Act, the selection of fines;

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

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

4. The Defendant and the defense counsel regarding the assertion of the Defendant and the defense counsel under Article 334(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act, respectively, of the provisional payment order, became null and void by failing to comply with the terms and conditions of H as a conditional integration, and H was on February 27, 201.