If the defendant does not pay the above fine, KRW 100,000.

The Defendant is the lessor of Dongdaemun-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government (hereinafter referred to as “instant commercial building”) No. 10-4, and the victim D is a person who was operating the “E coffee shop” by leasing the instant commercial building from the Defendant on February 4, 2015, under the terms of deposit of KRW 10.5 million, monthly rent of KRW 200,000, monthly rent of KRW 240,000, and the lease period of KRW 24 months (til February 4, 2017).

In the process that the victim tried to transfer the right to lease the commercial building of this case to F around August 2015, the Defendant demanded the victim to terminate the above lease contract to use the commercial building of this case as the office, but the victim voluntarily refused to operate the coffee shop.

Accordingly, around September 18:00 on September 7, 2015, the Defendant obstructed the operation of the coffee shop by force by preventing the victim from entering the entrance of the said coffee shop by locked the doors of the said coffee shop using the cresh set by the victim.

Summary of Evidence

1. Each legal statement of witness D, F and G;

1. Each police statement made in relation to D, F and G;

1. A complaint;

1. A real estate lease contract, a written answer, and a receipt;

1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes to E coffee entrance photographs;

1. Article 314 (1) of the Criminal Act applicable to the relevant criminal facts and Article 314 (Selection of Penalty) of the Criminal Act;

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

1. The defendant and his defense counsel's assertion on the claim of the defendant and his defense counsel under Article 334 (1) of the Criminal Procedure Act of the Provisional Payment Order. The defendant asserted that the defendant's act of locking the above door door locks of the commercial building is dismissed because the victim's failure to return the leased water without his own discretion even though the lease contract for the commercial building of this case was terminated and the lease deposit was returned, and this constitutes a legitimate exercise of authority as the owner of the commercial building.

However, based on the evidence of the judgment.