Defendants shall be punished by a fine of KRW 1,000,000.

In the event that the Defendants did not pay the above fine, 50.

Punishment of the crime

The defendants are in charge of the chairperson of the E, the defendant Eul, the general director of the defendant Eul, and the defendant C are in charge of the financial affairs.

The Defendants decided to block the access road in front of the low temperature warehouse used by the victim through the literature medium conference on the ground that the victim F leaves garbage in the E-gate and has been removed from the outside, and that it is non-cooperative in the village day.

At around 14:00 on April 9, 2012, the Defendants surveyed the boundary, confirmed that the access road was owned by the owner of low temperature warehouses located in G in G in G, and obstructed the front entrance of the vehicles and farming machines by installing a wooden standing signboard stating “Prohibition of Access” in front of the boundary.

The Defendants, by force, prevented entry into and departure from vehicles and agricultural machinery, thereby causing the victim to have it difficult for the victim to ship 300 boxes (15 km) and 120 boxes (20 km) stored at low temperature warehouses, thereby hindering the victim’s agricultural business.

Summary of Evidence

1. Defendants’ respective legal statements

1. Each legal statement of the witness H and F;

1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes to report on site photographs, printed materials, agreed price, and attachment of application for coal;

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

1. Determination as to the Defendants and their defense counsel’s assertion under Articles 70 and 69(2) of the Criminal Act for the detention of a workhouse

1. The Defendants, as stated in the facts of the crime, set up a standing signboard which is prohibited from entering the victim’s entrance by linking the hump to the entrance door prior to the victim’s low temperature warehouse. However, the Defendants expressed their intent as to the part of the land owned by the Defendants, where the hump, etc. is installed, and the victim did not pay reasonable prices.