If the defendant does not pay the above fine, KRW 100,000.

The Defendant, while doing the construction of an apartment, has installed a retaining wall on the front road of the apartment owned by the Defendant and closed it as the present condition. However, the Defendant had attempted to search for the apartment construction site at the above apartment site to interfere with the construction.

On July 2, 2015, from around 10:30 to around 11:00, the Defendant set up a first car for Defendant E in the vicinity of the construction site where the Plaintiff, a sub-contractor, is performing the construction work, at the construction site of the new apartment construction site in the Namyang-si for about 30 minutes, and obstructed the Defendant’s entry of the construction vehicle and materials into the construction site in such a way that the Defendant installed a simplified passenger after getting off the vehicle from the vehicle to the construction site.

Accordingly, the defendant interfered with the work of the damaged party by force.

Summary of Evidence

1. Partial statement of the defendant;

1. Each legal statement of witness F, G and H;

1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes on site photographs, victim F-Submission site photographs;

1. Article 314 of the Criminal Act applicable to the crime, Article 314 (1) of the Criminal Act, the selection of fines, and the selection of fines;

1. Article 70(1) and Article 69(2) of the Criminal Act to attract a workhouse;

1. The reason for sentencing under Article 334(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act does not extend to the time when the defendant was set up a vehicle, the degree of interference with the construction at the actual construction site at the time seems not to be serious, and the defendant has no criminal history other than fines once due to the crime of injury in 1995, and the defendant has old age and other conditions of sentencing disadvantageous to the defendant, such as the defendant's age, sex behavior, and circumstances after the crime, etc., shall be determined as ordered by considering all kinds of conditions of sentencing disadvantageous to the defendant.

Defendant

측의 주장에 대한 판단 피고인 및 변호인은, ① 남양주 시청이 시정명령을 내리는 등 이 사건 공사가 위법한 공사로서 형법상 보호가치 있는 업무가 아니고, ② 피고인은 자동차 시동을 켠 상태로 잠시 공사현장에 들린 것일 뿐 공사를 방해하려는 의도가 없었으며,...