Defendant

A is a person who has leased a factory in Kimpo-si B and its site, and the victim C is a person who has entered into a real estate monthly rent contract with D, the original owner of the factory, etc. during the lease and use of the above factory, etc. by the defendant.

On April 26, 2016, the Defendant: (a) around 11:00 from around 14:00 to the same day; (b) around 14:00, the Defendant: (c) prevented the victim from locked the factory entrance door by locking on the ground that the victim C(58, South) was not paying the deposit money; and (d) obstructed the victim’s factory operation by force.

Summary of Evidence

1. Defendant's legal statement;

1. Statement made to C by the police statement;

1. Application of video-related Acts and subordinate statutes to factory entrance photographs;

1. Relevant Article 314 (1) of the Criminal Act concerning criminal facts, the choice of a fine, and the choice of a fine;

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

1. The sentencing of Article 59(1) of the Criminal Act (amended by Act No. 500,000 won per day of detention in a workhouse, 100,000 won per day) seems to have been a civil dispute between the defendant and the victim at the time of the cause of sentencing. The following are considered: (a) the defendant appears to have committed the instant act of interference with business by contingency in the course of resisting the victim’s nonperformance of duty; (b) the period of continuation is shorter and the defendant seems to have not actually suffered any damage to the victim; (c) in a dispute between the defendant and the victim that continued from