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

From May 9, 2013 to April 22, 2014, the Defendant conspired with C to build a new house in the vicinity of the said Drash site by the victim E, F, and G, a construction business operator, and the Defendant and C to build a new house in the vicinity of the said Drash site, thereby preventing the victims from passing through the said road, which is an access road to the construction site, by force.

Summary of Evidence

1. Partial statement of the defendant;

1. Each legal statement of witness E, F, G, J, K, and L;

1. On-site photographs and documentary evidence photographs [In full view of the methods and patterns of the instant crime recognized by each evidence at the time of the board, the Defendant interfered with the victim's business by force by preventing the victim's vehicle from passing through the above road, which is an access road to the construction site, as stated in the facts constituting a crime. Such act cannot be deemed to have satisfied the reasonableness of the means and method of the act, the balance between the protection interest and the infringement interest, and the urgency or supplement, and it is difficult to view it as a legitimate act under social norms (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2003Do300, Sept. 26, 2003)]. The application of statutes

1. Article 314(1) and Article 30 of the Criminal Act applicable to the relevant criminal facts, the selection of fines, and the selection of fines (Provided, That the amount of fines exceeding the summary order shall be reduced, considering the fact that there is room for somewhat considering the circumstances of the crime committed by the defendant in this case);

1. Articles 40 and 50 of the Criminal Act of the Commercial Concurrent Crimes;

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