Defendant shall be punished by a fine of KRW 1,500,000.

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

Punishment of the crime

The defendant is a person who operates a D golf course in Kimcheon-si C.

In early 2013, the Defendant: (a) stopped the vehicle in the G, etc., which is an access road to the spath field, which is located in F cultivated by the victim E; (b) thus, the Defendant obstructed the victim’s spathy industry by installing fences to prevent access to the said road from entering the spathy field; and (c) thereby obstructing the victim’s spathy industry by force.

Summary of Evidence

1. Partial statement of the defendant;

1. Statement protocol by the police for E;

1. On-site photographs and the surveying result map of boundary restoration;

1. A copy of a notification of removal of a steel network and related civil documents;

1. The application of Acts and subordinate statutes to investigation reports (in cases of attaching drawings indicating a place where a pents are installed);

1. Article 314 (1) of the Criminal Act and Article 314 of the same Act concerning the crime, the selection of fines;

1. Article 70(1) and Article 69(2) of the Criminal Act to attract a workhouse;

1. The Defendant and the defense counsel’s assertion on the assertion of the Defendant and the defense counsel under Article 334(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act of the Provisional Payment Order asserts that the crime of this case is not the only way to obstruct the business of this case, since the injured party can enter the field of spawn cultivated by himself/herself through the H river path in Kimcheon-si, Kimcheon-si, G, etc. (hereinafter “the access road of this case”).

In full view of the type of the access road of this case, the actual use relationship, and the surrounding geographic situation, etc. recognized by the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court, it can be sufficiently recognized that the Defendant’s access to the access road of this case interfered with the victim’s spathy and farming business due to the Defendant’s crime of this case, which installed a pen on the access road of this case. The above assertion by the Defendant and the defense counsel is without merit