Defendants shall be punished by a fine of KRW 1,000,000.

In the event that the Defendants did not pay the above fine, the Defendants did not pay the fine.

Punishment of the crime

Defendant

A is the head of the G church in Pyeongtaek-si F, and Defendant B and C are the head of the above church, and H is the head of the above church, and the Defendants are the pastors of the above church, while the Defendants, under the direction of the above pastors, lost the G church in a civil lawsuit that brought against the order of religious order, but they did not assume responsibility for the above pastors and maintained the post of a pastors, and they had the mind to interfere with the worship of the above pastors, such as passing through sound of the above pastors.

Defendants conspired as above on July 3, 2016, at around 11:00, the above G church held by the above pastors against 80 passengers, and after attending the beer inspection, “I church’s pastors cannot be viewed as worships.”

By avoiding disturbances, such as a large voice and a large voice, it interfered with the worships of the G church believerss, and from that time until January 1, 2017, after attending the worships of the said pastors through the above four times in total, as shown in the list of crimes in the attached Table, from January 1, 2017 to January 10, 2017, the disturbance interfered with the worships of the G church believerss.

Summary of Evidence

1. The Defendants’ respective legal statements

1. The protocol concerning the interrogation of each police suspect against the Defendants

1. Statement made by the police with H;

1. A complaint (including all attached materials), a suspect's written opinion;

1. In the investigation report (Attachment of the list of the members of the G church), investigation report (the details of the G churchJ’s statement) [the Defendants and the defense counsel, Defendant C did not participate in the crime on July 3, 2016 and the crime on January 1, 2017, and each of the instant worship was already completed at the time of the act of not falling under the worship subject to the protection of the obstruction of worship or interference. Rather, the Defendants’ acts of interference are only the occurrence of the Defendants’ independent worship.

However, according to the above evidence, the defendant C did not directly perform part of his act.