If the defendant does not pay the above fine, 50,000 won.

On October 12, 2012, around 09:50 on October 12, 2012, the Defendant interfered with the operation of the road packing work of the Mine Construction Co., Ltd. by force on the ground that the noise was severe and groundwater was polluted due to the E construction ordered by the Jeonnam-do, and that the C construction ordered by the Jeonnam-do.

Summary of Evidence

1. Partial statement of the defendant;

1. The police statement concerning F;

1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes to the investigation report;

1. Relevant Article 314 (1) of the Criminal Act concerning criminal facts, the choice of a fine, and the choice of a fine;

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

1. Judgment on the assertion by the Defendant and the defense counsel under Article 334(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act

1. As to the assertion that it does not constitute force, the Defendant and his defense counsel asserted that at the time the Defendant’s act did not constitute force as a constituent element of the crime of interference with business, the Defendant’s act did not constitute force, i.e., force of force, which is the element of the crime of interference with business.

The crime of interference with business under Article 314(1) of the Criminal Act is established when a person interferes with another’s business by deceptive means or by force. The term “defensive force” in this context includes not only assault and intimidation, but also social, economic, political and political status and pressure based on royalty, etc. as all tangible and intangible forces capable of suppressing and mixing a person’s free will, and such force includes acts of making certain physical conditions impossible or considerably difficult for a person to perform his/her duties, even if he/she does not necessarily have to be directly engaged in his/her duties.

Supreme Court Decision 201Do7943 Decided May 24, 2012