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

The defendant is a person engaged in agriculture.

On August 31, 2017, the Defendant interfered with the victim and the construction business operator’s new construction work of the victim’s own house by force by way of blocking the construction work of the victim’s new construction work by installing a boundary bar at intervals of about 1.5 meters at the location of the victim’s site and blocking the victim’s new construction work from entering the building site, on the grounds that the victim E, who is the owner of the adjoining D site, was unable to secure a water way by installing a fume in the direction of the Defendant’s water way for farming use.

Summary of Evidence

1. Partial statement of the defendant;

1. Statement made by the police for E;

1. A complaint, a real estate transaction contract, a factual confirmation, and a certificate of permission for development activities;

1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes to investigation reports (on-site investigations and accompanying photographs);

1. The pertinent legal provisions on criminal facts, Article 314(1) of the Criminal Act regarding the option of punishment, and the choice of fines (based on evidence, the existing access roads leading to the scene of the victim’s house construction were installed as a spawor, at a spathy, at a spawor, as indicated in its reasoning. Accordingly, the damaged party’s vehicle that entered the house at which the victim was constructed is not accessible to the place, and the materials should be transported to the human resources at the vicinity of the boundary bed.

The above act by the defendant constitutes the threat of interference with business by making physical conditions that may lead to the suppression and confusion of the free will of people.

However, the defendant did not open a temporary bypassing road on his own land while doing the above act and did not make the traffic impossible.

It does not seem that the exercise of power or the result thereof is relatively heavy.

In these circumstances, the defendant is the primary offender, the degree and result of the obstruction of duties, and the age, sex, environment, and this case.