Defendants shall be punished by a fine of KRW 3,000,000.

The Defendants did not pay each of the above fines.

Punishment of the crime

The Defendants are the teachers of the E High School operated by the E Foundation, which is a lifelong educational institution, and the former president and the principal of the Foundation, who died on April 1, 2017, are in conflict with the current school operation issues.

At around 22:00 on April 2, 2017, the Defendants: (a) at the school principal of the E High School in Seo-gu, Daejeon, Daejeon; (b) on the same day, the said F’s bereaved family members, H et al. requested the bereaved family members and the principal of the school to remove a subdivision for funeral, such as a photo of the deceased person’s permanent affairs, consolation, harmony, candlelight, etc. installed and operated at the same time; and (c) the bereaved family members and the principal of the school did not comply with the request; (d) the Defendants voluntarily entered the school principal in the school, carried the entire subdivision of the said subdivision into the school principal, carried it out of the school principal’s room; and (e) put it into the school principal’s

The Defendants jointly interfered with the funeral ceremony of the deceased F.

Summary of Evidence

1. The Defendants’ respective legal statements

1. Statement made by the police with H;

1. Application of statutes on site photographs;

1. Relevant legal provisions concerning criminal facts and the Defendants who choose punishment: Articles 158 and 30 of the Criminal Act;

1. Defendants to be detained in the workhouse: Articles 70(1) and 69(2) of the Criminal Act

1. The Defendants of the provisional payment order: Determination on the Defendants and their defense counsel’ assertion under Article 334(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act

1. The Defendants asserted that they did not remove facilities, such as the entries in the facts charged in this case, according to their own will, but did so according to the direction of the president, who was responsible for the responsibility of the Foundation E, the Foundation E, and thus, it does not constitute a future interference with food.

2. Determination

A. According to the evidence adopted and examined by this court, the witness J only stated in this court that: (a) the Defendants did not instruct the Defendants to remove a decentralization facility (the witness J, 4 pages); and (b) the witness J did not instruct the Defendants to remove the decentralization facility in this court.