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

On June 17, 2015, around 14:06, the Defendant maintained its effectiveness by cutting off the four banners owned by the victim C and five banners on a aggregate of 350,000 square meters for banners owned by the victim D and 350,000 square meters, at the entrance of the factory site for the Defendant’s operation, on the ground that the Defendant did not get bank loans by posting them at the entrance of the site for new construction of the factory site for the Defendant’s operation.

Summary of Evidence

1. Partial statement of the defendant;

1. C’s legal statement;

1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes to a report on investigation (Attachment of banner photographs);

1. Relevant Article 366 of the Criminal Act concerning the facts constituting an offense and Article 366 of the Selection of Punishment;

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

1. As to the Defendant’s assertion of the provisional payment order under Article 334(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act, the Defendant asserts that the act of cutting the Defendant’s banner constitutes legitimate act of self-defense or legitimate act, since the Defendant did not have a right of retention and illegally claimed a right of retention, and posted an insulting speech to the Defendant on the banner.

According to the evidence duly adopted and examined by this Court, the victim posted a banner by asserting a lien as the victim performed a civil construction work on the land of this case and did not receive the construction cost from the defendant. Even if the victim's lien is not legitimate, the defendant, even though he could take legal measures, such as provisional disposition or civil lawsuit, to remove the banner of this case, cutting the banner immediately without taking such measures, and some of the banner of this case included the Defendant's non-conscient horse against the Defendant, but the defendant can be recognized the fact that he cut it by cutting the whole banner, not by removing or removing only the content thereof, so the defendant's act of cutting the banner installed by the victim is a requirement of a legitimate act such as urgency or supplement.