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

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

Punishment of the crime

The Defendant was in charge of the general affairs of the D Merchants Association in C calendar D.

On April 19, 2016, when a new executive was elected on or around April 19, 2016, the member fee to be paid monthly was not paid for three months, and the member fee was expelled from the said merchant association.

The Defendant, from around 07:00 on December 9, 2016 to around 11:00 on the same day, from Asan City E, Da 1 block, the Victim F, who had been engaged in the business of selling fish at the place where the said merchant meeting had been engaged in the business of selling fish at the seat of a member of the said merchants’ meeting, is to operate the business within this place.

"A sound," parking G Lone Star Sheet on the front of the place, and storing goods, such as clothes, in the vehicle, etc., in the side, has been disturbed for about four hours.

Accordingly, the Defendant interfered with the victim's business of selling dry fish by force.

Summary of Evidence

1. Partial statement of the defendant;

1. Legal statement of witness F;

1. Relevant photographs;

1. Application of the Acts and subordinate statutes governing the determination of disposition of the place of interference;

1. Relevant legal provisions and Article 314 (1) of the Criminal Act concerning the crime. Article 314 (Selection of Penalty)

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

1. Reasons for conviction under Article 334 (1) of the Criminal Procedure Act against the order of provisional payment;

1. The gist of the argument is that the Defendant has been running a business for a period of seven years at a place where the Victim F, as indicated in the facts charged, had been operating.

In doing so, the defendant's business was carried on at the place where he operated without sea the F, which would rather interfere with the defendant's business and, on the contrary, the F would not have been able to be protected against the defendant's business.

Since the Defendant’s act written in the facts charged is an urgent escape during the continued infringement of the legal interests of the Defendant himself/herself, it is not illegal, and even if illegal, it cannot be expected that such an act should not be committed.

2. The following facts are determined: or