Defendant

G shall be punished by fine for negligence of KRW 2,000,00, by Defendant J and A, respectively.

The Defendants respectively.

Punishment of the crime

Attached Form

same as the entry

(However, the summary of the evidence is as follows: (a) "suspect" is "Defendant"; (b) three of the obstructs contents of No. 19 per annum of the crime sight list, "after provoking, after provoking," and (c) "after provoking, and Defendant G after provoking," respectively.

1. Legal statement of witness E;

1. Towing interference video CDs;

1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes to the head of a complaint, content certification, place of interference with worship, and details of dispatch report by 112;

1. Relevant Articles 158 and 30 of the Criminal Act and the choice of fines for the crimes (the defendants)

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

1. Articles 70 (1) and 69 (2) of the Criminal Act;

1. The Defendants and the defense counsel asserts that the charge of litigation costs did not constitute obstruction of worship, since most of the crimes stated in the facts charged were committed before the commencement of worship, and thus, most of them did not constitute obstruction of worship.

On the other hand, the crime of interference with worship under Article 158 of the Criminal Act is established when the crime of this case is committed in the preparation stage closely related to worship time (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2007Do5296, Feb. 1, 2008). In full view of the above evidence duly examined and adopted by this court, the Defendants committed each of the crimes of this case in “before the commencement of worship” or “in the course of towing” or “in the course of towing” as indicated in the attached list of crimes.

Therefore, the above assertion by the Defendants and the defense counsel is without merit.