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

When the defendant does not pay the above fine, 100,000 won.

Punishment of the crime

The Defendant, at around 10:50 on May 3, 2015, in the “C church,” set aside in the “C church,” which is located in the Namnam-gun B, the Defendant taken the form of viewing D and its members as a mobile phone from among the Dos in which the pastor D, the president of the party branch of the said church, together with about 20 the members of the said church, scambling the scam with D and scambling the scam, and then he pushed D with D, he cannot take the above scambling power.

"Along with the large sound, it interfered with the normal progress of the worship, such as suspending the worship of D being performed by several members while attending."

Summary of Evidence

1. Partial statement of the defendant;

1. Statement made by the police against D;

1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes to photograph by cutting down a course;

1. Relevant Article 158 of the Criminal Act concerning the facts constituting an offense, the choice of a fine, and the choice of a fine;

1. Article 70(1) and Article 69(2) of the Criminal Act to attract a workhouse;

1. Determination on the Defendant’s assertion under Article 334(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act

1. Defendant’s assertion D is a person who does not have the right to legally deliver a tugboat at the instant church. D’s delivery, etc. of a worship does not constitute the subject of protection of the crime of interference with worship, and even if the worship of a household constitutes the subject of protection of the crime of interference with worship, Defendant’s act constitutes a justifiable act that does not violate social rules.

2. Determination

A. Interference with worship is a legal interest that protects the peace of the religious life of the public as well as the protection of religious emotions, and the peace and religious sentiment of the believers attending the worship are also included in such legal interest. Thus, even in a case where a pastor, who has a trial expense for such qualification, delivers a worship, obstructing worship that was going in a peaceful way under his/her extradition constitutes an act of interference with worship (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 71Do1465, Sept. 28, 1971; 2003Do5798, May 14, 2004). Contrary to the Defendant’s assertion, the act of interference with worship constitutes an act of interference with worshiping worship (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 2003Do5798, Apr. 14, 2015).