except that the execution of the above punishment shall be suspended for two years from the date this judgment becomes final and conclusive.

At around 22:40 on October 16, 2019, the Defendant: (a) demanded the victim B, a staff member of the Korea Railroad Corporation, to see that the train will collapse; and (b) demanded that the victim B, a staff member of the Korea Railroad Corporation, “after the end of the strike, the train will cause inconvenience to the citizens; and (c) the victim responded that “I will cause inconvenience to the victims. I now normally operate, I will now be going to frighten.” However, the Defendant interfered with the operation of the station for about 30 minutes by force, such as smoking, fright of bitch, and bitching CCTV, customer guidance, etc., of the victim.

Summary of Evidence

1. Defendant's legal statement;

1. Police suspect interrogation protocol of the accused;

1. The police statement concerning B;

1. C and D’s written statements stating that the Defendant’s act does not constitute “defensive force” under the crime of interference with business. “In the crime of interference with business” in the crime of interference with business does not ask a person’s free will as a force, tangible or intangible, and does not necessarily require a restraint, but should be sufficient to suppress the victim’s free will in light of the offender’s status, number of persons, surrounding circumstances, etc. As such, the determination of whether the Defendant constitutes such force ought to be made objectively by taking into account all the circumstances, such as the time and place of the crime, motive, purpose, number of persons, capacity, type of duty, type of duty, and the victim’s status (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2016Do10956, Oct. 27, 2016).