Defendants are not guilty.

1. The summary of the facts charged is the co-owner of the building on Pyeongtaek-si D ground, and on April 19, 2012, the victim E Co., Ltd., the lessee, stated in F (44 years of age and south) in the indictment, but the lessee under the lease agreement is E Co., Ltd., and it is reasonable to deem the victim as also E Co., Ltd.. as the victim is also the victim. The Defendant obstructed the victim’s restaurant business by force by blocking all of the suppliers of electricity supply services on the ground that the sum of monthly rent and electricity charges for the second floor of the above building was not paid.

2. Determination

A. Defendant A’s assertion that both Defendants and the defense counsel delegated the management of the building to Defendant B, and the request for the closure of Korean power was solely made by Defendant B, and was unaware of the fact. The Defendants asserted that the complainant was not in operation at the time of Defendant B’s request for closure of work, and that the complainant did not pay the electricity fee for three months when the lease contract was terminated and the lease deposit was not remaining, and that the complainant did not pay the electricity fee for three months. As such, the Defendants paid the electricity fee on behalf of the Defendants and the request for the closure of work with Korean power, this constitutes a justifiable act

B. (1) The following facts are acknowledged according to the Defendants’ statements in this court, the Defendants’ partial statement in this court, the witness F’s statement, the summary of the Korea Electric Power Corporation, the answers to the Korea Electric Power Corporation’s summary circumstances, reference materials, judgments, police investigations (including the receipt and handling of incidents and accidents), etc.

(A) On July 15, 201, the Defendants are co-owners of Pyeongtaek-si and one parcel of land, the Defendants set the lease deposit amount to KRW 70,000,000, monthly rent 6,710,000 (including value-added tax) and August 29, 2016 between E Co., Ltd. and the complainant (hereinafter “instant store”) for the entire second floor of the said building (hereinafter “instant store”). However, the Defendants are the interior of the building executed by the complainant.