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

Around December 19, 2010, the Defendant asserted C Sang-si as the representative of the management body, requested the head of the management office in Young-gu, Young-gu, Suwon-si, the management office for the commercial buildings whose management expenses were overdue at the management office for the commercial buildings in arrears. However, the head of the management office rejected the request.

Accordingly, from around 16:30 on December 9, 2010 to around 19:00, the Defendant opened an electric room of the 1,2, and 5th from around 16:00 to opened the electric room of the 1,2, and reduced the power supply position of the E commercial buildings in the operation of the victim F, G commercial buildings in the operation of the victim Ha, I commercial buildings in the operation of the victim Ha, and K and L commercial commercial buildings in the operation of the victim Ha. From around 19:0 on December 9, 2010 to December 17:00, 201; from around 19:15, December 9, 2010 to around 20:00, the Defendant interfered with the victims’ business by force by failing to supply electricity to each of the above commercial buildings.

Summary of Evidence

1. Partial statement of the defendant;

1. Each legal statement of witness J, H, F, and D in the second trial records;

1. Statement of the police statement of M;

1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes to each investigation report (examination of the legality of the exclusive measure of a suspect, and confirmation of whether business is conducted at the time of the exclusive examination);

1. Relevant provisions of the Criminal Act and Article 314 (1) of the Criminal Act concerning the selection of punishment;

1. Of concurrent crimes, the former part of Article 37, Articles 38 (1) 2 and 50 of the Criminal Act;

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

1. The defendant and his defense counsel asserted against the defendant and defense counsel under Article 334 (1) of the Criminal Procedure Act of the provisional payment order asserted that the act of short payment to the victims of this case was lawful in accordance with a resolution of the management body meeting based on the management rules, and thus, it constitutes a justifiable act under the Criminal Act in light of various circumstances, such as the motive, purpose, means, method, circumstance, etc.

Therefore, in full view of each evidence adopted through due process of investigation of evidence, i.e., Suwon-si C.