Defendant shall be punished by a fine of KRW 300,000.

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

Punishment of the crime

The defendant, as a matter of reinstatement of the members D who were dismissed from the "C" as the president of the Seoul Metropolitan Government Branch of the Korea Metal Trade Union, requested an interview with the representative director and convened with 7-8 members before the above company.

1. On October 21, 2014, around 08:28, the Defendant affected the building by demanding an interview with the representative director in front of the “C” located in Geumcheon-gu Seoul, Geumcheon-gu, Seoul, for an interview with the representative director, and by keeping private staff from entering the company, and by entering the workplace, into the building managed by others.

2. The Defendant interfered with the business affairs of the said company by force, such as demanding an interview with the representative director for about one hour by entering the C workplace, as described in the preceding paragraph, and engaging in physical fighting with the private employees who dissatisfing, desireing, and neglecting the nature of the company.

Summary of Evidence

1. Partial statement of the defendant;

1. A protocol of partial police interrogation of the accused;

1. A written statement;

1. Investigation report (victim'sF submission of data);

1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes to investigation reports (CtV and other video data analysis results);

1. Relevant Article 319 (1) of the Criminal Act, Article 314 (1) of the Criminal Act, Article 314 (1) of the Criminal Act and the selection of fines for the crime;

1. Of concurrent crimes, the former part of Article 37, Articles 38 (1) 2 and 50 of the Criminal Act;

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

1. The defendant's assertion regarding the defendant's claim under Article 334 (1) of the Criminal Procedure Act was conducted as stated in the judgment in order to request an interview with the representative director due to the reinstatement of members D who were dismissed by the above company, and this is alleged to the purport that the act constitutes a justifiable act as "an act which does not violate social rules" under Article 20 of the Criminal Act. However, in light of the circumstances of this case, the defendant's behavior and the result of damage, etc., the above act of the defendant cannot be viewed as a justifiable act that does not go against social rules.