Defendant shall be punished by a fine of one million won.

If the defendant does not pay the above fine, KRW 100,000.

Punishment of the crime

The Defendant is the president of D Co., Ltd. operating the play equipment in C, and the victim E is the person who operated the tank play equipment in C from October 1, 2010 to October 1, 2010.

On November 3, 2014, the Defendant: (a) caused F, a main director at the above location, to temporarily suspend the operation of the tank-based play equipment at the entrance of the tank-based play equipment; (b) attached a sign of size A3 paper size stating “I may be legally liable at the time of unauthorized Entry into the place of business;” thereby preventing the victim and C visitors from having access to the said play equipment; and (c) obstructed the victim’s business of the tank-based play equipment by force.

Summary of Evidence

1. Partial statement of the defendant;

1. Partial statement of the suspect interrogation protocol of the accused by the prosecution;

1. The prosecutor's statement concerning the F;

1. Partial statement of each police interrogation protocol against the accused (including the E statement part);

1. Statement to E by the police;

1. No-entry-prohibited photographs and on-site photographs;

1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes on daily consolidation;

1. Relevant provisions of the Criminal Act and Article 314 (1) of the Criminal Act concerning the selection of punishment;

1. Articles 70 (1) and 69 (2) of the Criminal Act for the detention of a workhouse;

1. The defendant's assertion under Article 334 (1) of the Criminal Procedure Act of the provisional payment order;

1. First of all, the Defendant asserts that the instant play equipment was frequently broken and the risk of accidents, which led to suspension of operation for the safety of users and safety inspection of play equipment, and that it was inevitable measures as well as intentional interference with business was denied.

The following circumstances acknowledged by the foregoing evidence, i.e., the complainant, from October 2010 to run the play equipment business of this case. From November 201, there was a dispute between the company where the defendant is the representative director and the company where the representative director is responsible for the validity of the play equipment contract and the distribution of profits. The defendant is immediately after the above dispute.