1. The punishment against Defendant A shall be eight months of imprisonment;

However, the above sentence shall be executed for a period of two years from the date this judgment became final and conclusive.

Punishment of the crime

Defendant

A is the son of the victim D(M, 82 years old), and the defendant B is the son of the victim.

The defendants are aware that the property under the name of the victim is considerably located, and they should be found to the victim from time to time, and the goods remaining in the land should be distributed to us.

The system of national security is also the system of his or her sonship.

In the event of death, it was demanded to us that the remainder of the land remaining after the Mauritius is changed.

1. Around May 4, 2016, Defendants in violation of the Punishment of Violences, etc. Act (joint arrest) refused the victim’s request for self-determination by the bank, in front of the Dong-si E-Ba, the victim’s residence, and the victim refused. Defendant A was pushed down to a passenger car with a gallon of Defendant B, which was parked at the victim’s place by taking advantage of the victim, and Defendant B was forced to take a ballon of the victim’s bridge on a passenger car with a gallon.

Accordingly, the Defendants jointly arrested the victim who is a lineal ascendant or a lineal ascendant or a lineal ascendant of the spouse.

2. From May 4, 2016, Defendants in violation of the Punishment of Violences, etc. Act (Attempted joint coercion) 1 and 201 in the same manner as Defendant B’s galloned gallon, Defendant B carried the victim on a passenger car with the galloned gallon of Defendant B, and Dai Nong Dong 11 located in the Gui-si, Goi-si Do-ro 11, and thereafter, the victim is a private person to go up to the 2nd floor of the building and to go up to the documents, and the victim does not go up.

As Defendant A refuses to mean “the victim’s bridge,” Defendant B her head by putting the victim’s head into the victim and her head through the stairs of the building, thereby bringing the victim to the Nonghyup branch.

Afterwards, the Defendants demanded the victim to sign on the written consent to confirm the transaction details in the name of the victim at the point of Goi Amsung, the Defendants failed to comply with the request and attempted to achieve the intent of the victim.

Accordingly, the Defendants jointly do so.