On July 5, 2014, from around 09:30 to around 11:00, the Defendant interfered with the victim’s work by force by obstructing the operation of the excavation equipment, such as blocking the progress of the excavation equipment at the site of the removal work in which the victim (the victim) in Seongbuk-gu, Sungnam-si is performing the act of 1452, and causing damage, such as dust, noise, etc., to the Defendant’s residence, etc., due to the said construction work.

Summary of Evidence

1. Partial statement of the defendant;

1. Legal statement of witness D;

1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes to petition for accusation (record seven pages of evidence);

1. Relevant Article 314 (1) of the Criminal Act concerning criminal facts, the choice of a fine, and the choice of a fine;

1. A fine not exceeding 500,000 won to be suspended;

1. Articles 70(1) and 69(2) of the Criminal Act (100,00 won per day) of the Criminal Act for the inducement of a workhouse;

1. The defendant and his defense counsel's assertion as to Article 59 (1) of the Criminal Code (the first offense, the fact that the defendant was responsible for the important duties of the Countermeasure Committee on behalf of residents, the degree of damage, etc.) of the suspended sentence (the defendant and his defense counsel asserted that the defendant's act committed to prevent the defendant's act in order to prevent it from violating social rules because the damaged company did not perform the duty to take safety measures such as dust noise reduction measures and safety fences.

In full view of the following facts: (a) the developments leading up to the instant crime; (b) method and degree of the Defendant’s act; (c) the legal interest infringed upon by the Defendant’s act; and (d) the damaged company was engaged in construction by soundproofing and proof methods; and (c) the act as indicated in the facts charged cannot be deemed to have satisfied the reasonableness of the means or method of the act; (d) the balance between the protected interest and the infringed interest; and (e) the urgency or supplement of the protected interest

Supreme Court Decision 2003Do3000 Delivered on September 26, 2003