If the defendant does not pay the above fine, KRW 100,000.

The Defendant is a person who operates a construction interior company in Seo-gu, Incheon, under the trade name of “C”, and the victim D is a person who operates the third secretary general with the trade name of “F” on the lease of the first floor of the Seo-gu, Incheon.

The Defendant, from October 2018 to December 2018, committed a construction work for the test of “F” operated by the victim between approximately two months, but did not receive the cost of construction from the victim, and thus, had the intent to occupy the said Deputy Director without permission to recover the cost of construction.

The Defendant, from February 17, 2019 to February 24, 2019, changed the password of a locking device with the password inside the third third line of “F” with the mind of mind, and opened one string and one glring vehicle inside the third vice line with the number strings. The Defendant prevented the victim from operating the third vice chief.

Accordingly, the defendant interfered with the operation of the victim's third deputy chief by force.

Summary of Evidence

1. Each legal statement of witness D and G;

1. Business registration certificate and commercial lease contract;

1. The defendant and his defense counsel asserted to the effect that the defendant did not interfere with the victim's business because he was in a state of business suspension while he was engaged in the defendant's married business with the victim who was the partner at the time when he discussed to terminate the contract with the victim.

However, the following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court, namely, ① the Defendant invested money in the third secretary general of the “F”, and the Defendant is the victim, ② the Defendant and the victim were not in operation of the third secretary general due to the employment of the third secretary general, ② the dispute arose between the Defendant and the victim due to the difficulties in the operation of the third secretary general. While the victim was in Busan at the time of the occurrence of the instant case, G employees of the victimized party was in attendance at the third secretary general of the instant case for the victim. However, during that period, the Defendant continued to work for the third secretary general of the instant case for the victim.