Defendant

A is a person who operates a golf club with some of the two-story areas of golf practice hall from the former (former) in the "D" located in the case of Pakistan operated by the victim B, and the victim B is a person who operates the above golf practice hall.

The defendant and the victim have a dispute over the validity of sub-lease contracts between E and the defendant.

On October 18, 2016, the Defendant: (a) fixed advertising signboards on the CCTV immediately front of the CCTV set up by the victim on the wall for the confirmation of the status of the operation of the golf course and for the management of the facilities, and (b) prevented the Defendant from taking images by setting up the sirens of the CCTV installed on the wall.

Accordingly, the Defendant interfered with the operation of the golf course and the management of the facilities of the victim by force, and has harmed the utility of CCTV by other means.

Summary of Evidence

1. Two-time suspect examination protocol against the defendant, which is part of the police (including the part concerning theF statement);

1. Each police statement concerning G and F;

1. Application of CCTV Acts and subordinate statutes;

1. Relevant Article 314 of the Criminal Act, Articles 314 (1) and 366 of the Criminal Act, the choice of penalty against a crime, the choice of a fine;

1. The former part of Article 37 of the Criminal Act, and Articles 38 (1) 2 and 50 of the same Act, which aggravated concurrent crimes;

1. A fine not exceeding 700,000 won to be suspended;

1. Articles 70(1) and 69(2) of the Criminal Act (100,000 won per day) of the Criminal Act to attract a workhouse;

1. Article 59(1) of the Criminal Act of the suspended sentence (see, e.g., Article 59(1) of the Criminal Act (see, e., Supreme Court Decision 2007Da1548, Apr. 1, 2007) (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2008Da11448, Apr. 2, 2008) (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 200