Defendant shall be punished by a fine of KRW 3,000,000.

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

Punishment of the crime

The Defendant is a person who runs a wholesale and retail business, such as franchising, with the name of “F” by constructing convenience stores and flowers houses from May 1, 2015 to the name of “F” after having built convenience stores and fireworks buildings in Seo-gu, Seo-gu, Seoan-gu, Seoan-si.

From April 15, 2017 to April 16, 2017, the Defendant: (a) installed a steel network at the entrance of the above road and prevented a person who was ordered to take corrective measures to restore access roads from the office of the office of the office of the office of the office of the office of the office of the office of the office of the office of the office of the office of the office of the office of the office of the office of the office of the office of the office of the office of the office of the office of the office of the office of the office of the office of the office of the office of the office of the office of the office; and

Accordingly, the Defendant interfered with the access road construction work and fireworks business of the victimized person by force.

Summary of Evidence

1. Entry of the defendant in part in the first trial record;

1. A protocol concerning the examination of the police officers of the accused;

1. Each legal statement of witness D, H and I;

1. Application of the Acts and subordinate statutes to the complaint;

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. Determination as to the assertion by the Defendant and his/her defense counsel under Article 334(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act

1. In order to prevent the risk of the defendant's family members, the defendant only set up a steel net once to prevent the risk of the defendant's family members, and there was no risk of obstructing or obstructing the victim's business.

2. “Interference with business affairs” in relation to interference with the determination of business affairs includes not only interference with the execution of business affairs itself, but also broad interference with the management of business affairs, and the establishment of interference with business affairs does not require that the result of interference with business is actually generated, and the risk of causing interference with business affairs arises (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2012Do3475, Jan. 31, 2013). This Court is sufficient.