The sentence of each sentence against the Defendants shall be suspended.

Punishment of the crime

Defendants were the members of the F church education center in Songpa-gu Seoul, and victims G (the age of 43) were the members of the above church. Since 2004, the above church was divided into the educational observation members and the members of the present church, the Defendant’s members were determined on February 26, 2013 to the effect that “the victim shall have access to the above church’s real estate and shall not interfere with the passage of the above church within the above church,” in the case of provisional disposition of prohibition of interference with the business of the chairman of the church, Seoul East Eastern District Court 2012Kahap2084, which was decided to the effect that “the victim shall not interfere with the passage of the church.”

1. Defendant A: (a) around 10:05 on January 10, 2014, on the ground that Defendant A entered the victim in the distribution of the said church in which Defendant members of the said church occupied, the victim was boomed; (b) Defendant A left the victim with both descendants, thereby having been suffering from the victim.

Accordingly, the defendant assaulted the victim.

2. Defendant B, at the above time and place, was in favor of the victim by hand on the above grounds.

Accordingly, the defendant assaulted the victim.

Summary of Evidence

1. Defendants’ respective legal statements

1. Legal statement of witness G;

1. One copy of the Defendant’s video CD, and six copies of the Defendant’s photograph A4 paper;

1. Application of CD screen pictures and field photographs-related Acts and subordinate statutes;

1. Article 260(1) of the Criminal Act applicable to criminal facts and Article 260(1) of the choice of punishment [Article 260(1) of the Criminal Act (Selection of Fine) for the crime of this case] (Article 260(1) of the Criminal Act (Article 7(1) of the Witness G stated to the effect that the Defendants did not go to the future due to the Defendants’ criminal acts. However, Defendant A made a statement to the effect that it was not likely to obstruct the future due to the Defendants’ criminal acts, but Defendant A’s use of force against the victim’s body should be deemed as the exercise of force against the victim’s intent].