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

Around November 7, 2013, the Defendant entered into an entrusted management agreement with the victim E with respect to two stores of "D shopping center," which was leased by the Dispute Resolution Co., Ltd. in his/her own company B, and had it conduct the business of selling female clothes, and even though he/she requested delivery due to the expiration of the period of use under the above entrusted management agreement, the Defendant did not receive the said store, and the Defendant did not contact with the victim.

On April 1, 2014, around 23:50, the Defendant opened the locks installed in the said store shuts, opened the locks, replaced the new locks, and prevented employees of the victim who worked at around 10:00 a.m. on the following day from selling clothes by opening the said box and entering the said box.

Accordingly, the Defendant interfered with the victim's clothes sales business by force.

Summary of Evidence

1. Defendant's legal statement;

1. Each suspect interrogation protocol (A, B);

1. Each written statement (E);

1. The agreement on entrusted management attached to the complaint, the notice of termination of the entrusted management contract, and the application of photograph statutes;

1. Relevant provisions of the Criminal Act and Article 314 (1) of the Criminal Act concerning the selection of punishment;

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

1. The grounds for sentencing under Article 334(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act for the order of provisional payment are as follows: (a) the background of the occurrence of the instant case; (b) the background of the dispute with the victim; and (c) the Defendant’s criminal records (no criminal records other than fines on two occasions in 197 and 1993); (d) the method and result of interference with business; and (e) the dispute over the premium and the entrusted management contract period of the Defendant