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

The defendant is the representative director of "E Co., Ltd.", and the victim is a person who is exercising the right of retention against the defendant's company.

On November 2, 2015, the Defendant posted the two banners equivalent to KRW 400,00 at the market price of the phrase “the GI president shall perform the obligation of compensation,” in order for the victim H to exercise the right of retention in the outer pents of the building site of “G hotel in Bupyeong-gu Incheon, Incheon,” and damaged the said banner by ordering the JJ of the security guards working in that place to remove the said banner.

Summary of Evidence

1. Partial statement of the defendant;

1. Legal statement of the witness H;

1. Statement made by the police to J;

1. The investigation report (the cost reported to K) (the submission of reference documents to the victim H), the investigation report (the submission of reference documents to the victim) and the application of Acts and subordinate statutes to the investigation report (the counter investigation report);

1. Relevant Article 366 of the Criminal Act concerning criminal facts, the choice of a fine, and the choice of a fine;

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

1. The defendant's argument as to the assertion of the defendant and his defense counsel under Article 334 (1) of the Criminal Procedure Act of the Provisional Payment Order, the defendant argued that the act of this case, which is merely a mere removal of the banner posted by the victim, is a justifiable act that does not violate the social rules and thus, the illegality of the act of this case is dismissed, since the defendant's act of this case is a legitimate act that does not violate the social rules, since the defendant's act of this case is merely a removal of the banner, and the victim requested removal of banner from the victim, but the victim's refusal to comply with the above request was inevitably removed and the defendant stored the banner in its original form, and then notified the victim of the place and method of return.

However, in light of the following circumstances revealed by the evidence duly adopted and investigated by this Court, the Defendant had contact with the victim under the above circumstances.