(E)Es at night, injury by deadly weapons, etc. (a modified name and injury)

(b) Interference with business;

Housing Daegu

Permanent Address Gyeongbuk

On January 7, 2005, the Defendant was sentenced to 10 months of imprisonment for fraud at the Daegu District Court to 10 months of probation, and was appointed as the representative director of 00, a corporation established for the purpose of construction execution business, etc. as a person with three times of fraud and six times of violence in addition to the present probation period;

1. On April 24, 2005, around 00:01, the Plaintiff owned 00 above 00 Mapo-si, Mapo-si, Mapo-si, 1021 located in Daegu-gu, and obstructed A’s business by means of an electric power to cover the gate of about 1m in length and the entrance door windows, etc. of about 1m in length on the ground that A engages in business without paying management expenses, taxes, etc., and by reason that A does not pay it;

2. In collusion with the Nonindicted Party (Omission)

Summary of Evidence

1. Defendant's legal statement;

(hereinafter omitted)

Application of Statutes

1. Article applicable to criminal facts;

§ 314.1

2. Aggravation of concurrent crimes;

Articles 37 (former part), 38 (1) 2, and 50 of the Criminal Act

Non-Crime

1. Summary of the facts charged

On April 24, 2005, the Defendant: (a) around 00:01, the Defendant: (b) owned 00 above 100 Mapo-si, Mapo-si, Mapo-si, Mapo-si, 1021 located in Daegu-si, and carried on business without paying management expenses, taxes, etc.; (c) broken up the door door door of about 1m in length and the door door door door of 1m in length; (d) the victim B (22 years of age) employed by A interfered with the business of A by force while leaving the electric line well, and caused the victim B (22 years of age) of the private security guard employed by A to put the hand on the right side, which requires approximately two weeks medical treatment.

2. Determination

The evidence of this case includes the statements and injuries of B and A. According to the statements in this court of this court, the defendant did not leave the door door door door door door door door door door door door door door door door door door door door door door door door door door door door door door door door door door door for the prevention of this. In this case, the defendant cannot be recognized as having intention to injure B, the remaining evidence alone is insufficient to recognize it, and there is no other evidence to prove it differently.

Thus, the defendant is not guilty in accordance with Article 325 of the Criminal Procedure Act, since there is no proof of crime as to the injury of the facts charged in this case.