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

On February 2, 2015, the Defendant obstructed the duties of the said victim by force between approximately 20 minutes, such as (i) finding the victim D, which is operated by the victim D, around 13:20 on February 2, 2015, and (ii) finding the victim’s 2 E-2, which is operated by the Defendant D, and (iii) leaving the factory and laying the door inside the factory.

Summary of Evidence

1. Application of the witness D’s statutory statement legislation;

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 alleged that the illegality of the defendant's act is denied as a justifiable act that does not violate social norms. However, considering the circumstances leading up to the crime of this case, the method and degree of interference with business, and its contents, which can be known by the evidence of the judgment, the defendant's act cannot be deemed as a justifiable act that does not violate social rules.