Defendant shall be punished by a fine of KRW 700,000.

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

Punishment of the crime

On June 22, 2016, the Defendant entered into a joint planning performance agreement with the victim D (ma6 years old) who was a drama producer in the Defendant’s management C theater located in Jongno-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government B-202, and decided to rent the said theater for the performance of the victim’s musical works from July 16, 2016 to August 21, 2016.

On July 17, 2016, the Defendant entered into a contract with the victim himself/herself at around 12:00 on July 17, 2016, which was not a regular contract, and thus was unable to perform a public performance by the method of a theater on the ground that the contract is not effective, thereby obstructing the victim’s performance.

Summary of Evidence

1. Protocols of examination of witnesses regarding D;

1. A report on investigation;

1. Application of statutes on a copy of performance contract;

1. Article 314 (1) of the Criminal Act applicable to the relevant criminal facts and Article 314 (Selection of Penalty) of the Criminal Act;

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

1. Article 334 (1) of the Criminal Procedure Act concerning the order of provisional payment;

1. Determination as to the defendant's assertion under the main sentence of Article 186 (1) of the Criminal Procedure Act, which bears the costs of lawsuit

1. The summary of the argument does not have concluded a contract to rent the theater of this case with the victim regularly. Thus, the victim did not have the right to hold a public performance in the theater of this case.

Therefore, the defendant was unable to perform public performance in the theater of this case as far as the victim had no longer been able to do so on the wind of opening the door of the theater of this case.

Even if the victim's performance is hindered, it cannot be viewed that the victim's performance is hindered.

2. The following circumstances that can be acknowledged by the evidence duly examined by this court, namely, ① the Defendant, on June 22, 2016, affixed his/her seal to a joint planning performance agreement (Evidence No. 2) (Evidence No. 2), and considering the circumstances where the victim’s investigation agency on the process of preparing the said agreement, and the victim’s statement from the investigative agency to this court is specific and consistent and its credibility is established, the said agreement is effective between the Defendant and the victim.