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

The defendant has served as a director of C who is a steel distributor.

Defendant C had approximately KRW 680 million claim from the victim D Co., Ltd., but the victim Co., Ltd was able to dismantle and store the machinery in the victim company in order to hear the question that the victim company is insolvent and secure the above claim.

At around 04:00 on December 31, 2014, the Defendant requested F, etc. to dismantle and move the wrong processing device of the said company from the victim company located in Jin-si E. At the Defendant’s request, F, etc. dismantled the main parts of the above processing machine, which are the main parts of the processing machine, and dismantled the main parts, such as the main part of the machinery system control tower, machine board strawer, micrometer, strawer, digital butter, etc., and interfered with the Defendant’s product production business by force for approximately 22 days from the string to January 21, 2015.

Summary of Evidence

1. Partial statement of the defendant;

1. Entry of the witness G and H in the third public trial records, and part of the witness I;

1. Statement made by the witness J in the fourth public trial protocol;

1. A protocol concerning the examination of a part of the prosecution against the accused (including the part concerning the testimony of H and J);

1. Each police statement made with H and F;

1. Each statement of G and H prepared;

1. Earthquake-proof report (Investigation of H excursion ships);

1. A certificate of contents, documents on the rehabilitation decision, a facility lease contract, and the president of the customer;

1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes on site photographs;

1. Article 314 of the Criminal Act applicable to the crime, Article 314 (1) of the Criminal Act, the selection of fines, and the selection of fines;

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

1. Determination on the defense counsel’s assertion under Article 334(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act of the Provisional Payment Order

1. The assertion;

A. Defendant D Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “victim”) had attempted to sell steel at approximately KRW 680 million to the victim D Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “the victim company”), but there was a spread of the nonperformance of the victimized company, and Defendant J as the person in charge of the victimized company, to secure credit credit security.

J is the use of the transaction agreement and the goods of the damaged company as proposed by the defendant.