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

To the extent that there is no concern about substantial disadvantage to the defendant's exercise of his/her defense right, the facts charged are recognized as criminal facts.

[Judgment of the court below] On November 2, 2018, the defendant and the injured party B accepted the sales agency business of the above D building from the E Co., Ltd. to the F Co., Ltd., which is scheduled to be newly constructed on the ground C at the south-si, the defendant and the injured party B as a partnership business.

【Criminal Facts】

1. On April 8, 2019, around 11:30, the Defendant interfered with the business, at the office room of sales in D buildings (containers) located in Hanam-si, and at the commission for sales in lots with the victim, the Defendant disputed the issue of the victim’s and the sales in lots with the victim “influence,” and “influent tax base, etc.,” and closed the office entrance as a key.

Accordingly, the defendant interfered with the victim's vicarious sale of goods by force.

2. On April 23, 2019, the Defendant: (a) brought the victim a sales agency fee including his/her own share from around 11:00 to around 16:00 on June 30, 2019; (b) on the outer wall of the said sales office, the Defendant posted a banner stating “B representative of the malicious sub-sale agency who does not pay the sales commission” on the outside wall of the said sales office so that he/she can be seen by an unspecified number of people; and (c) attached a paper printed letter stating “B” on the window of the said sales office.

Accordingly, the defendant has damaged the reputation of the victim by openly pointing out facts.

Summary of Evidence

1. Defendant's legal statement;

1. Each police statement concerning B;

1. A copy of the business registration certificate, a copy of the contract for vicarious sale (change), and a copy of the business agreement;

1. Evidential photographs of each evidence;

1. Application of the Act and subordinate statutes of the Written Complaint of April 8, 2019 (Evidence No. 2, No. 163 of the Evidence Record)

1. Relevant Article 314(1) of the Criminal Act and Article 314(1) of the Criminal Act (the point of interference with business), Article 307(1) of the Criminal Act (the point of defamation of facts, including the point of defamation of facts), and each of them.