Defendant

A shall be punished by a fine of two million won.

Defendant

If A does not pay the above fine, KRW 50,000.

Punishment of the crime

As the victims of the victim D’s dynamics, the Defendants did not appear to be between the victims D and their denied victims E due to inheritance problems after the mother’s death.

1. Defendant A

A. On January 26, 2013, the Defendant sent text messages to the victim D’s mobile phone at an unclaimed place, which read “a brupted a brupted fluent fraud, even with a certain mechanical value,” and had the victim repeatedly reach the victim by transmitting text messages 49 times in total from around that time to February 11, 2013, as indicated in the attached Table No. 1 to 49 times in the list of crimes committed during the period from that time.

B. On February 5, 2013, the Defendant sent text messages to the victim E’s mobile phone at an unclaimed place (i.e., “I wish to die.”) and sent text messages to the victim E viaout 52 times from that time to February 12, 2013, and repeatedly sent text messages to the victim, such as the statement Nos. 50 through 101 in the table of crime sights, thereby causing fear and apprehensions.

2. The Defendants found the Defendants as the second third village F at around 17:30 on February 18, 2013, and found the victim D in Dongjak-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government, and Defendant B was seated in a small wave located within the above inner boundary, and Defendant A took the victim’s desire to “this rings, she must do so. In addition, the Defendant did not enter the place to enter the said inner boundary by avoiding the disturbance, such as “I shall do so. I have to do so. I have to see the tax base of the tax revenue and the tax base of the capital, as soon as possible. I have to do so.”

Therefore, the victim called "I am at home" and the defendants were allowed to leave several times, but the defendants did not leave the above boundaries, and the victim did not have any choice but did not have any choice.

After that, until 17:50, the Defendants interfered with the victim's safe-point business by staying in the above boundary store.

As a result, the Defendants jointly exercise their rights to the victim’s work.