Defendant

A shall be punished by a fine of KRW 15,000,00, and by a fine of KRW 2,000,000, respectively.

The Defendants respectively.

Punishment of the crime

Defendant

A On January 20, 2017, after being sentenced to two years of suspension of execution on the one-year basis due to interference with business by the Ulsan District Court, the judgment became final and conclusive on May 27, 2017.

Defendant

A is the former chairperson of the Korean Democratic Labor Union General Union (hereinafter referred to as the “Private Union General”) and Defendant B is a worker who engages in cleaning at a M University located in Ulsan-gu L (hereinafter referred to as “M”) and is a member of the Nowon-gu K Union M of the K Union site (hereinafter referred to as “M workers”).

M Large cleaning labor union shall be made from March 27, 2014 to the same year.

5. By the end of 28.28. A request for wage increase, etc. was made against N Co., Ltd. and O Co., Ltd. which provide cleaning services, but the private side rejected the demand;

5. After the resolution of the strike on 29. After the resolution, the company sought wage increase, etc. from M & M to M & M as the original company, and had a farming nature in front of M & M & M.

On February 9, 2017, the Defendants were deaf in front of the Mlue Mlue Park, and the Defendants were forced by Mlue Mlue Mlue Park who received the acceptance of “the provisional disposition prohibiting departure from office and interference with business,” and were forced to remove a tent farming growth on the side of the Mlue Mlue Park, followed the demand for wage increase by creating a farming growth again on the back of the Mlue Ma.

Accordingly, the Defendants from around 17:00 on February 9, 2017 to the same year.

4. From the 14th day to the Mandaemun, the sti pumps et al. were established in approximately 3-4 square meters above the India, adjacent to Mandaedaedaemun, and the growth of the farming industry was established.

As a result, the Defendants conspired to occupy and use roads without obtaining permission from the road management agency, and committed acts that interfere with road structures and traffic without justifiable grounds.

Summary of Evidence

1. Defendants’ legal statement

1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes, such as the removal and mooring of each site photograph and the piling up of the road;

1. Subparagraph 6 and 7 of Article 114 of the Act, Article 61 (1) and Article 75 subparagraph 3 of the same Act concerning facts constituting an offense; Article 30 of the Criminal Act;

1. Articles 40 and 50 of the Criminal Act of the Commercial Competition;

1. Selection of each selective fine for punishment (in the case of Defendant A, the same kind of fine);