Defendants shall be punished by imprisonment for four months.

However, from the date of the conclusion of the judgment, each of the above two years against the Defendants.

Punishment of the crime

Defendant

A is the president of the C Merchant Association, and the defendant B is the general affairs of the C Merchant Association.

From October 16:00 to October 22:00 on October 30, 2014, the Defendants interfered with their duties over 25 times in total, as shown in the annexed Table of Crimes, by neglecting the demand of market-merchants, such as victims E, etc., to leave the market by bringing containers, buses, and farming machinery, etc. around the access road located in the Da in Ansan-si from October 29, 2014 to October 22:00, and allowing them to leave the market, and neglecting the demand of market-merchants, such as victims E, etc. to leave the market.

Summary of Evidence

1. The suspect interrogation protocol against the Defendants

1. Statement to E by the police;

1. Application of the provisions of Acts and subordinate statutes on site photographs and the current state of the closure of roads under a complaint and accompanying Cwitter;

1. Article 314(1) and Article 30 of the Criminal Act; Articles 314(1) and 30 of the Criminal Act; the Defendants’ choice of punishment

2. Defendants among concurrent crimes: former part of Article 37, Articles 38(1)2 and 50 of the Criminal Act (limited to concurrent crimes with punishment stipulated in the crime of interference with business No. 25 of the annexed Table No. 25 of the Criminal Code).

3. Defendants on probation: Although the Defendants on the grounds of sentencing under Article 62(1) of the Criminal Act could resolve the problem through legitimate means, such as negotiations, the Defendants are clearly erroneous in obstructing the business in the manner as stated in its reasoning in order to prevent the 5-day merchants from taking out and conducting funeral services.

However, there is a reason to take into account the motive and method of the Defendants, such as interfering with their duties, only when they committed the crime in accordance with the resolution of the CMerchant and set up buses, etc. at the place intended to be originally used as a parking lot.

Furthermore, Defendant A did not have any criminal punishment for a fine once, or one time other than a suspended sentence, and Defendant B was punished by a fine.