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

The Defendant, as the representative of Jeju-si C (State) D, was the person who entered into a contract for the mold construction for the new construction of warehouses on the FF land at Jeju-si on June 10, 2015 and carried out construction work.

After the completion of the above framework construction work between the defendant and E, disputes have occurred in relation to the construction cost.

Accordingly, on July 7, 2015, the Defendant interfered with the progress of construction work by preventing the construction site without piling up construction materials installed on the above land, on the ground that E does not pay construction cost.

Accordingly, the Defendant interfered with the E business by force.

Summary of Evidence

1. Statement by the defendant in court;

1. Statement made by the police for E;

1. Application of statutes on field photographs;

1. Relevant legal provisions and the choice of punishment for a crime: Article 314 (1) of the Criminal Act and the choice of fines;

1. Attraction of a workhouse: Articles 70 (1) and 69 (2) of the Criminal Act;

1. Provisional payment order: Article 334(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act [it is difficult to evaluate that the act of the defendant is acceptable in light of the overall legal order or the social ethics or social norms surrounding it, and the fact that the defendant's act is acceptable in light of the overall spirit of the legal order and its surrounding social norms, and that it is difficult to evaluate the "act that does not violate the social rules" as stipulated in Article 20 of the Criminal Act, in light of the fact that the defendant's act can be found guilty of the facts charged under the aforementioned evidence, as well as the storage of construction materials on the land for the reason that there is a dispute over the construction cost.

The reasons for sentencing shall be determined as follows in consideration of all the following circumstances.

A favorable circumstances: The fact that all facts constituting an offense are recognized, that the defendant was unable to pay the construction cost from the injured party, and that there is a right of retention on the building in the related civil procedure of which the judgment was rendered after prosecution, and that there is a claim for construction cost against the injured party.