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

1. From December 1, 2014 to December 2, 2014, the Defendant: (a) had a container installed at the entrance of the relevant construction site on the grounds that the victim D, the purchaser of the said land, did not pay the construction cost that he/she had been entrusted by the former purchaser; and (b) had the victim D, the purchaser of the said land, and did not pay the construction cost that he/she had been entrusted by the former purchaser; and (c) prevented the Defendant from having access to the construction site; and (d) interfere with

2. From 09:30 on December 3, 2014 to 10:30 on December 3, 2014, the Defendant interfered with the victim’s land creation work by force over about one hour by getting an engineer of cream to withdraw from the construction site and allowing him/her to withdraw from the site of the above facility construction site for the elderly, on the ground that the victim moved a container brought to another place as referred to in the above paragraph (1) to the other place. The Defendant took a bath to the article of cream in his/her name and takes a bath to the article of cream in his/her name, and “if he/she does not want to do so, he/she is only the Corporation.”

Summary of Evidence

1. The defendant's partial statement in court (the purport that he/she brought containers at the date and time specified in paragraph (1) of the facts of the crime);

1. Each legal statement of E and F;

1. Protocol of examination of the witness witness D;

1. Application of statutes on site photographs;

1. Relevant Article 314 (1) of the Criminal Act concerning the crimes. Article 314 (Selection of Fine)

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

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

1. As to the argument of Article 334(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act, the defendant and his/her defense counsel asserts that the defendant's act as stated in the facts charged constitutes a justifiable act since he/she exercised the right of retention.

The possession of an object is the requirement of a lien and the requirement of existence.

However, according to evidence, the defendant had already been recorded before the date of the facts charged.