When the defendant does not pay the above fine, 100,000 won.

On April 15, 2016, the Defendant set up a steel net at the entrance of the C river of 526 square meters (owner: D) in Chuncheon City, 19:00 on April 15, 2016, and the Defendant re-surveys the place where the said steel network is installed, and, as a result, the owner of the land is not a foundation corporation but a water resource corporation. However, there is no difference in that the Defendant is no owner of the land where the said steel network is installed.

In the vicinity of the above steel network, the victim F, who is living in farming houses, was unable to pass the vehicle by leasing a river site located near the above steel network, thereby obstructing the business of the victim's growing crops by force.

Summary of Evidence

1. Partial statement of the defendant;

1. Statement made by the police with respect to F (including attachment photographs eight pages);

1. Investigation report ( relative investigation of D land administrators);

1. Coloric pictures of investigative reports (exploitic photographs), complainants, and photographs;

1. Application of statutes on a certified copy of cadastral map and a copy of land lease contract;

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. Determination as to the assertion by the Defendant and his defense counsel under Article 334(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act

1. The summary of the assertion is consistent with the installation of a steel network in the facts charged by the Defendant, but there was no intent to obstruct the victim’s agricultural business operations, and it does not actually interfere with the victim’s business.

2. The intention, as a subjective constituent element necessary for the formation of a crime of interference with the affairs by force of judgment, shall be sufficient if there is a perception of exercising force in order to interfere with the affairs of another person, and the crime of interference with the affairs shall also be established by the willful negligence.

In addition, the establishment of a crime of interference with business affairs does not require that the result of interference with business actually occurs, and it is sufficient that the risk of causing interference with business affairs arises (see Supreme Court Decision 2008Do4228, Mar. 25, 2010, etc.).