When the defendant does not pay the above fine, 100,000 won.

The defendant is the owner of the D building at the time of official residence and the lessor, and the person who entered into a lease agreement with the victim E and the above D building 3-2, and operates the F. “F.”

On February 17, 2014, the Defendant visited the site by G which entered into a lease contract with the victim with respect to subparagraph 3-1 of the above building on the third floor of the above building, and thereby, “A. D.,” and the wife of G so as to take screen pictures, thereby getting back to G and his wife. On the third floor of the above building, around 12:30 of the same month, at around 19:19 of the same month, the Defendant, at around 12:30 of the above building, opened the distribution of the third floor corridor’s corridor in order to estimate and plan electrical construction works together with H, which is an electrical construction business operator, and distributed the third floor of the above G to its own will, and caused G to terminate the lease contract with the victim.

Accordingly, the defendant, by force, interfered with the building lease business as a lessor of the victim.

Summary of Evidence

1. Partial statement of the defendant;

1. Each legal statement of the witness H, G, E, and I;

1. Recording records;

1. Recording file USB;

1. A copy, etc. of a commercial lease agreement, a copy of a real estate lease agreement, and a commercial lease agreement;

1. On-site photographs and photographs of power distribution teams;

1. Application of each video statute of 128, 129 pages of investigation records among additional evidentiary materials;

1. The prosecutor of the pertinent Article of the Criminal Act and Article 314(1) of the Criminal Act regarding criminal facts and Article 314(1) of the choice of punishment on the second trial date stated that only the crime that occurred on February 19, 2014 was prosecuted as a obstruction of business, and that the facts that occurred on February 17, 2014 are facts concerning the above charges.

[Establishment of a crime of interference with business affairs does not require the actual occurrence of a result of interference with business affairs, and it is sufficient if the risk of causing interference with business affairs arises (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 91Do944, Jun. 28, 1991).