except that the execution of the above punishment shall be suspended for two years from the date this judgment becomes final and conclusive.

The defendant is a staff member of the D Plant Co., Ltd. in C, and is a representative of the National Metal No. D Plant Committee.

On August 10, 2013, at around 18:15, an engine was accumulated within an engine plant located in the aforementioned D Factory, which was not tested due to the malfunction of engine test equipment, and, in order to facilitate work, E, one copy of the engine engine engine of the above D Factory, obtained consent from 10 workers under its control, had workers undergo a test for two hours from around 01:30 on August 11, 2013 to 03:30 on the same day.

At around 08:50 on August 12, 2013, the Defendant gathered the number of 45 workers of the aforementioned process who were leaving the D Factory Engine at the 1 factory F process, the rest time, and the number of workers of the above process who were leaving the work during the rest time, and prevented the said workers from returning to work. At around 09:00, the Defendant suspended the 110 minutes of the instant engine demburator by encouraging the employees to return to work by the director of the said engine, who was in turn going to work, by encouraging the employees to return to work, and by preventing them from 110 minutes of the same day.

Accordingly, the Defendant suspended production lines as above and prevented the victim from producing the F 44 vehicles, resulting in a loss of KRW 10,715,760, thereby obstructing the victim’s automobile engine production business by force.

Summary of Evidence

1. Partial statement of the defendant;

1. A protocol concerning the suspect examination of the accused;

1. Statement of each police statement of G and E;

1. E statements;

1. Application of the photographic Acts and subordinate statutes;

1. Article 314 (1) of the Criminal Act and the choice of imprisonment with prison labor concerning the relevant criminal facts;

1. The suspended sentence is a case that leads to the instant crime, despite the record of the same kind of crime, in several times of the reasons for sentencing under Article 62(1) of the Criminal Act. However, it seems to be followed.