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

The defendant is a person who resides in Suwon-si B, and the victim C(50 years of age, south) is a building owner who constructs a studio newly built in D.

1. On April 24, 2018, from around 13:30 to around 13:42 of the same day, the Defendant, with a view to obstructing the entry of re-mixed vehicles, which were trying to enter the site for cement cooking from the Suwon-si D and the front street on the street, to obstruct the entry of re-mixed vehicles into the site, he/she provided that six prices of re-congested vehicles can be collected.

Accordingly, the defendant interfered with the victim's studio construction work by force.

2. On April 25, 2018, from around 13:40 to 14:45 on the same day, the Defendant intentionally prevented construction by blocking access roads in front of a newly constructed building by the victim, and preventing vehicles, such as ready-mixed vehicles, from entering the front of the building in which the victim was constructed, and preventing construction by putting the head on the floor of the drup on the face of the defect.

Accordingly, the defendant interfered with the victim's construction work of the studio building by force.

Summary of Evidence

1. Partial statement of the defendant;

1. Statement of the police statement regarding C;

1. C’s statement;

1. Each report on internal investigation:

1. The defendant asserts that a copy of a permit to change the purpose of use of a building and large-scale repair, a certificate of permission to occupy and use a road, photographs of the victim mobile phone text photographs, field photographs, etc., and CDs [the defendant only has obstructed India from illegally flying on the one-way road where the ready-mixed vehicle cannot enter the road on the date and time stated in the facts constituting the crime. Thus, there was no intention to interfere with business, and around April 25, 2018, there was no choice but to go beyond the floor in the course of arrest, and there was no choice but to go against the head. However, according to each of the above evidence, it cannot be deemed that a ready-mixed vehicle recorded in the facts constituting the crime was illegally flying on the one-way road. In addition, according to the above evidence, the defendant carried out the "afterward vehicle" in the direction of one-way passage.