At around 14:00 on November 26, 2012, the Defendant disputed the issue of real estate brokerage commission in the E Licensed Real Estate Agent Office operated by the victim D in Dongjak-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government, and obstructed the victim's real estate brokerage business by force for about 30 minutes, such as: (a) the Defendant expressed his desire to do so with a large interest of “Neae ......... Doar ducation,” and (b) the Plaintiff expressed his book at the same time as “Doar .... Doar c. c. h. h. h. h. h. h. h. h. h. h. h. h. h. h. h. h. k

Summary of Evidence

1. Partial statement of the defendant;

1. Partial statement of the police suspect interrogation protocol against the defendant;

1. Application of the Acts and subordinate statutes governing the statement statement made to D by the police;

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

1. Determination as to the assertion of the defendant and his defense counsel under Article 59(1) of the Criminal Act (the punishment to be postponed: fine of 300,000 won per day, detention in a workhouse: 50,000 won per day, and circumstances favorable to the reasons for sentencing as set forth below, etc.) of the suspended sentence

1. The defendant's act of claiming constitutes a justifiable act that does not violate the social rules and thus, the illegality is excluded.

2. In light of the degree of the Defendant’s act as stated in its holding, it cannot be deemed that the Defendant has reasonableness in the means and method, and there is no urgent and special circumstance to deem that the Defendant had to perform the above act at the time. Thus, the above act does not constitute a justifiable act that does not violate the social norms.

Therefore, we cannot accept the arguments of the defendant and his defense counsel.

In light of various circumstances favorable to the defendant, such as the fact that there was no history of punishment against the defendant for the reason of sentencing, and there was no reason to consider the background leading to the crime of this case, and the mediation of real estate brokerage fees as stated after the issuance of the summary order of this case has been formed.