Where the defendant fails to pay the above fine, one hundred thousand won shall be one day.

The defendant is the head of the D's association with interest of the head of the D's branch office of the Korea Office of Financial Services Trade Union C.

On August 14, 2017, at around 10:00, the Defendant attended a temporary general meeting of shareholders held at the meeting room of D8th floor located in Seodaemun-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government, Seodaemun-gu, the Defendant interfered with the victim F’s general meeting of shareholders by force by force, such as by attending a temporary general meeting of shareholders held in the meeting room of D 8th floor in order for F to declare a resolution after voting on the case of approval for reduction of capital for consideration.

Summary of Evidence

1. Statement made by the police with regard to F;

1. Recording records of the general meeting of shareholders;

1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes to photograph videos;

1. Article 314 (1) of the Criminal Act applicable to the facts constituting an offense;

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

1. Determination on the assertion of Article 334(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act

1. As to the assertion that the result of interference with business did not occur, the Defendant and the defense counsel did not constitute a crime of interference with business since the temporary general meeting of shareholders in this case was not separated.

The argument is asserted.

The agenda was passed by the temporary general meeting of shareholders of this case.

Even if the defendant's act such as a seed, etc. of the Speaker who intends to declare a resolution on his own, there was a result that interferes with the Speaker's "the photographic act" of the Speaker.

Therefore, we do not accept the above assertion without any need to further examine whether the result of the interference with business should occur in order to establish a crime of interference with business.

2. As to the assertion of justifiable acts, the defendant and his defense counsel often occur when the defendant's act stated in the facts charged is about to vote on the agenda that infringes on the interests of shareholders, and such act constitutes a justifiable act as an act to protect and achieve the interests of shareholders.