업무방해
The defendant shall be innocent.
1. The summary of the facts charged is as follows: (a) the Defendant, while operating the city bus TV monitoring company B (State) [the State] around May 2015, transferred 75% of the shares of the said company to D; (b) the Defendant did not receive 24% of the shares of the said company; (c) the said company did not hold 1.3 billion won of the shares of the said company; and (d) the said company did not hold 24% of the shares of the said company; and (e) the person who actually operates the said company after the transfer of the said shares, such as being called the Chairperson, by being provided with separate office work from the said company; and (e) was installed a TV monitor owned by the victim G (State) representative director (H) at the city bus owned by the E bus Transport Business Association; and (e) was aware that the said bus route has high profitability, such as the number of passengers aboard the said company.
On July 13, 2012, the Defendant filed an application with the Seoul Eastern District Court for a provisional disposition to remove TV monitors for advertising purposes installed in the bus, but the said application was dismissed on October 4, 2012, and the said appeal was also dismissed on June 7, 2013, but the said appeal was filed with the Seoul High Court. On March 12, 2013, the Defendant filed a lawsuit against H, including advertising media usage fees, with the Seoul Central District Court against the Plaintiff on April 16, 2014, but appealed with the Seoul High Court, but the appeal against the removal of the advertising TV monitoring was dismissed on June 12, 2015.
On January 12, 2015, Korea Bus Transport Business Association and F (State) filed an application for a provisional injunction for removal against H on January 12, 2015, but the said application was dismissed on June 26, 2015.
On September 2015, the Defendant, at the 7th floor of Seocho-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government I Building, knew clearly that the Defendant could not remove the victim-owned TV monitoring installed in the city bus owned by F (State) from the lawsuit as above, but, even though he knew that the Defendant could not remove the victim-owned TV monitoring installed in the city bus owned by F (State), the representative director of B (State) has “illegally operated monitors.”