If the defendant does not pay the above fine, 50,000 won.

The Defendant is the owner of the building in Seoul Special Metropolitan City, and the victim D is the lessee who operates the “E” clothes store on the first floor of the building in Seoul Special Metropolitan City.

At around 15:50 on June 19, 2013, the Defendant obstructed the victim’s above clothes sales business by force by blocking electricity supplied as the above clothes sales store without any notification while the victim was in operation.

Summary of Evidence

1. Partial statement of the defendant;

1. Legal statement of witness D;

1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes on report of occurrence;

1. Relevant Article 314 (1) of the Criminal Act concerning criminal facts, the choice of a fine, and the choice of a fine;

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

1. The Defendant’s assertion as to the assertion of the Defendant and the defense counsel under Article 334(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act against the provisional payment order. While the instant provisional payment order asserts that the Defendant’s independent act of building administrator F is irrelevant to the Defendant, and furthermore, the name of the building constitutes a self-help in the process of executing the construction, it is not acceptable to accept the above assertion, in light of the circumstances acknowledged by each evidence in the judgment, circumstances after the short circuit, the status of the Defendant, and the relationship with the Defendant and F, etc., where it is sufficiently recognized that the crime of interference with business against the Defendant was committed against the Defendant, and where the Defendant’s instant provisional payment order is unable to preserve the claim by the legal procedure, it cannot be deemed that the instant