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

If the defendant does not pay the above fine, 100.

Punishment of the crime

The Defendant is a private letter of “D” or a business director of a contractor in South Korea-si, Namyang-si.

Around November 7, 2014, the Defendant’s Defendant’s work “D” received a subcontract for boiler installation from the Victim G, the main owner of “F” on the first floor below the E building, at the time of the Government around the Government around November 7, 2014, and completed construction by receiving a subcontract for the boiler installation from H.

On March 20, 2015, the Defendant was unable to receive additional construction cost even after the commencement of the foregoing business.

It is argued that the victim, the owner of the business, requested the additional construction cost to the victim, but rejected the request.

On April 7, 2015, the Defendant: (a) had the victim interfered with the victim’s gambling and business; (b) had the Defendant enter the second floor engine room underground of the above Sari or the building with the I and J, and had the J arbitrarily return the source location of the water pumps from 16:00 from that time to 16:00, so that the Defendant could not supply water to the above Sari or the building.

Accordingly, the Defendant interfered with the consolation or business of the victimized person by force.

Summary of Evidence

1. Partial statement of the defendant;

1. Each statement of K and M in the fourth public trial protocol, and in the fifth public trial protocol, each statement of L and M;

1. Partial statement in the third public trial record;

1. Details on the transmission of text messages, pictures and text messages;

1. A complete certificate, such as a business report certificate and safety facility (the defendant and his defense counsel denied the criminal intent of interfering with the business, but the above evidence reveals that the defendant suspended water supply as stated in the judgment without prior understanding with G at the time, and failed to comply with G's demand for eviction after being obstructed; ② due to the defendant's act of suspending water supply, G can be acknowledged that he received a claim from the customers who used a letter at the time and received a refund; and the defendant had the criminal intent of interference with the business at the time when considering the above facts and the situation at the time.

[Determination]

Application of Statutes

1..