Defendant shall be punished by a fine of KRW 500,000.

Where the defendant fails to pay the above fine, one hundred thousand won shall be one day.

Punishment of the crime

The defendant is in office as C chief director, and the complainant D (the remaining and the age of 52) is in office as C's head of the partnership on his behalf.

The Defendant, at around 10:00 on May 18, 2016, at the fourth extraordinary board of directors meeting in C4, 2016, at the 4th interim board of directors in C, D, directors, etc., in order to deliberate and decide on the agenda in the fourth interim board of directors meeting in 2016, when several directors, including D, and C, appointed the Defendant as an agent for the president of the partnership, intend to amend and resolve the articles of association of the partnership with the contents of continuing to appoint the Defendant as an agent for the president’s duties as an agent for the president of the partnership. The Defendant raised complaints to amend and resolve the articles of association of the association with the contents of appointing the Defendant as an agent for the president of the partnership. The Defendant destroyed the customer’s utility by referring both descendants to the amount of KRW 460,00,000, and continuously damaged D and directors, and interfered with D and directors’ duties by force on behalf of the president of the partnership.

Summary of Evidence

1. Partial statement of the defendant;

1. Statement made by the police against D;

1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes concerning recording files of a temporary board of directors meeting and CCTV files on May 18, 2016;

1. Relevant legal provisions concerning criminal facts, Article 314(1) of the Criminal Act (the point of interference with business), Article 366 of the Criminal Act (the point of destruction of property), and selection of fines for negligence (the defendant and his/her defense counsel has been aware that he/she has taken the care of the defendant with his/her will and expressed his/her desire to do so, but it does not constitute a crime of interference with business since the defendant's act does not reach the

The argument is asserted.

However, the establishment of a crime of interference with business does not require the actual occurrence of the result of interference with business, but is likely to cause the occurrence of the risk of interference with business (Supreme Court Decision 2003Do7927 Decided March 26, 2004). According to the evidence of the judgment, the fact that according to the evidence of the judgment, the directors, etc. who agree with the amendment of the articles of incorporation of the board of directors of this case and the directors, etc. who oppose the amendment of