The Defendants did not pay each of the above fines.

Defendant

A owns a vinyl house located in Naju City D, and Defendant B owns a vinyl house located in E adjacent thereto.

On October 1, 2013, the Defendants leased the said vinyl to the Victim F for the original purpose of raising the said vinyl by setting the annual rent of KRW 3.5 million and the lease term of three years respectively. However, around January 2016, the said vinyl became difficult to manage because it was collapsed by the heavy snow, the Defendants conspired to remove the said vinyl while selling the said land to another person. On August 13, 2016, at the same time, the said vinyl remains with the lease term of the said vinyl, and interfered with the victim’s exercise of rights against the said vinyl.

Summary of Evidence

1. The Defendants’ respective legal statements

1. The protocol concerning the interrogation of the Defendants to the prosecution

1. Partial statement of the witness F;

1. Statement made by a part of the prosecution with respect to F;

1. Protocols of partial police statements related to G;

1. The application of Acts and subordinate statutes to report internal investigation (the attachment of relevant documents) and investigation reports (the submission of suspect B data by the suspect);

1. Relevant provisions of the Criminal Act and Articles 323 and 30 of the Criminal Act concerning the selection of punishment for a crime;

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

1. Determination as to the assertion by the Defendant and the defense counsel under Article 334(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act, respectively, of the provisional payment order

1. Since a vinyl, as stated in the summary of the allegation in the facts charged, has committed a situation in which it is impossible to achieve the purpose of the lease contract due to the failure of the vinyl, and on this ground, the lease contract was terminated by an attempt to negotiate the purchase of the site, etc., the victim’s right of lease does not constitute a crime of obstructing the exercise of rights by exercising the right

2. Determination

A. According to the aforementioned evidence, even if the Defendants were to receive the rent for the remaining lease period from the injured party on October 2015 to September 30, 2016, the Defendants were to receive the rent from the injured party on September 30, 2016, but the vinyl house on January 2016.