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

In the event that the Defendants did not pay the above fine, each of them is 100.

Punishment of the crime

Defendant

A as a creditor against the victim D, the relationship between the defendant B and the branch, and the victim D (73 years old) and the victim E (73 years old) are the couple's death.

On January 7, 2016, from around 16:20 to 16:35 on the same day, the Defendants: (a) laid the entrance by finding out the Songpa-gu Seoul F and Xxx, the victims’ residence, and (b) opened a door to the victim E who was mixed with the above residence at the time, and (c) confirmed whether the victim D was a victim; and (d) Defendant B set up a entrance reading center to prevent the victim E from opening the door.

Accordingly, the defendants jointly invaded the victims' residence.

Summary of Evidence

1. Each legal statement of witness E and D;

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

1. Statement made by the police against D or E;

1. The head of the complaint, the investigation report (to refer to telephone conversations with the victim) [The defendants alleged that there was no intrusion upon the victim's residence, but the victim E is "bacon with the victim" in investigative agencies and courts.

Although Defendant A’s request was made consistently with the purport that Defendant A’s entry into the house and the room was “Defendant B had a door, and Defendant B had a long-term contact with the victim D without paying the Defendant’s money.” Moreover, the Defendants’ statement to the effect that the Defendants were unable to find the said victim’s residence in order to urge the payment of the said amount of money, and that the Defendants’ statement to the effect that the Defendants were unable to find the said victim’s residence in order to demand the payment of the said amount of money, and the purpose and circumstances leading up to the Defendants’ finding the victim’s residence were considered, the victim’s statement appears to have higher credibility than the Defendants’ statement).

1. The Defendants: Article 2 (2) 1 of the Punishment of Violences, etc. Act and Article 319 (1) of the Criminal Act (the choice of a punishment) concerning criminal facts;

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