A A shall be punished by a fine of KRW 2,000,00, and Defendant B by a fine of KRW 700,000.

The above fine is imposed against the Defendants.

The Defendants, who were working at a systematic violence organization called "Seombam" managed by the police, listened to the fact that the construction work is frequently suspended due to the victim F (52 tax) civil petition from E, who received waterproof, aesthetic, and lighting construction at the site of the new construction of D apartment, around April 2016, Defendant A, who sought the victim’s complaint with Defendant B, was able to stop the victim’s filing of civil petition.

On April 27, 2016, from around 19:28 to 19:40 on the same day, the Defendants entered the restaurant, “H” restaurant operated by the injured party in Daegu-gu G from around 19:28 to around 19:40 on the same day, Defendant A entered the restaurant, to the restaurant, and “I will put a civil petition at the construction site, and in the future, you will put a civil petition for funeral,” and “I will put a civil petition in the future.” The Defendant B continued to provide meals to the victim in the restaurant, “I will find it impossible to do funeral, if I would put the victim in a civil petition at the new Gu office,” and the Defendant B, “I will not properly resolve the case,” and “I will slickly interfere with the Defendant’s food in the restaurant, such as the restaurant, the restaurant with the Defendant’s behavior, and the restaurant with the victim’s food in the restaurant, thereby preventing the victim from interfering with the victim’s business operation.

Accordingly, the Defendants jointly interfered with the victim's work.

Summary of Evidence

1. Each legal statement of J, K and L;

1. Statement made by the police for E;

1. The cafeteria CCTV-shield screen (the Defendants did not exercise force, and there was no intention to obstruct the business.)

However, in light of the fact that the horses and actions of the Defendants, the physical attack of the Defendants, and the other customers were the visitors who resist the Defendants, and the Defendants were the visitors without any prior contact during the bad business hours, the above evidence is admissible.