The sentence of sentence against the defendant shall be suspended.

Criminal facts

As the representative director of C (hereinafter “C”) of the Defendant, the Defendant leased the aggregate extraction site located in W from November 2010 to December 14, 2011 to F (hereinafter “F”) of the Victim E management company (hereinafter “F”). As the F’s financial standing is not good, the Defendant was in mind to prevent the removal of aggregate remaining at the said aggregate extraction site in order to secure bonds.

On December 19, 2011, at around 16:30 on December 16, 201, the Defendant: (a) ordered G to take measures to prevent the victim E from taking out aggregate on the ground that the lease term expires; and (b) ordered G to prevent access to the aggregate at the site of aggregate extraction.

The Defendant, by force as above, obstructed the victim’s removal of aggregate by not later than 14:30 of the same month.

Summary of Evidence

1. Partial statement of witness E in the third protocol of trial;

1. Each protocol of examination of partial police officers against Defendant G and Defendant G

1. Part of the police statement of H;

1. Application of statutes on site photographs;

1. Relevant Article 314 (1) of the Criminal Act concerning criminal facts, the choice of a fine, and the choice of a fine;

1. Penalty fine of 500,000 won to be suspended;

1. Articles 70 and 69(2) of the Criminal Act (50,000 won per day) of the Criminal Act for the inducement of a workhouse;

1. In the event that there is a dispute over the ownership of the aggregate of this case, the act of preventing the victim’s taking of the aggregate of this case, which is practically peaceful as stated in the facts constituting the crime of interference with business, without taking legal measures, such as prohibition of disposal or provisional disposition, constitutes the crime of interference with business. Even if the ownership of the aggregate of this case, by exercising the right to demand purchase thereafter, belongs to C of the operation of the defendant, it does not affect the nature of the crime of interference with business.