Defendant shall be punished by a fine of KRW 2,000,000.

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

Punishment of the crime

The defendant of "2018 Highly 749" is a person who was the head of the management office of the Dong-gu Seoul Metropolitan City Btel from November 2013 to February 2016.

On October 2014, the Defendant: (a) the relocating owner of an officetel purchased by the Victim C, Inc., requested the victim to pay delinquent management expenses due to the default of management expenses; (b) however, on the ground that the victim refused the request, the Defendant obstructed the business of the victim’s officetel lease by force from August 2014 to July 2015, by blocking the location of the subdivision box installed in the officetel with respect to the instant Btel No. D, which was owned by the victim, by means of blocking the location of the subdivision box installed in the officetel from January 2015; and (c) as described in the attached list of crimes.

The Defendant is a person who had worked as the head of the management office of the Gyeonggi-gu Busan-si Btel from November 2013 to February 2016, 2016.

On August 22, 2017, the Defendant appeared to take an oath as a witness in the case of compensation for damages, etc. against the said court 2015Gahap2573 B occupant management committee, which was located in Suwon District Court 451, as the Masan Sinnam-si, Sungnam-si.

During the hearing of the above case, the defendant responded to the question of "I do not know the fact that he prevented the electricity of officetels that he did not pay management expenses", and the witness answer the question of "I will be responsible for the danger that the plaintiff will break out and break off the electricity." The witness will be responsible for this danger. I will request the return of electricity and request the return of electricity, and there is no fact that the witness took over."

However, the defendant prevented the electricity of the officetels owned by the owner of the above officetel on the grounds of the delinquency in the management expenses of the owner of the above officetel, and thereafter, the defendant restored the officetels electricity owned by the owner of the (State)C at the request of the owner of the above officetel.

Ultimately, the Defendant himself.