beta
Text
A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for one year.
However, the execution of a sentence shall be suspended for a period of two years from the date this judgment becomes final and conclusive.
Reasons
Punishment of the crime
The Defendant entered into a “defensive contract for security” under the pretext of protecting the site office and the disabled organizations, etc. at the new apartment construction site to prevent any interference with their work, and placed employees at the entrance such as the door of the apartment house, etc., and had them enter the said apartment in order to make it impossible for the Defendant to take a sample to receive a contract for artificial construction (such as a change of various interior finishing materials within the household against the prospective occupants of the apartment newly built by the artificial apartment house) in the said apartment. In order to enable the artificial housing business operator who wishes to install and operate the apartment, to force the artificial housing business operator who wants to establish and operate the apartment, to enter the said apartment, to have him enter the apartment and construct the apartment, and to prevent him from doing the construction by force.
1. From August 2014 to December 2, 2014, when the Defendant conspired with E and F to commit a crime related to D apartment, and it is impossible to identify the specific date on August 8, 2014, the Defendant concluded a “selective contract for security use” with the site office and free office at the location of the construction site in Seo-gu, Seo-gu, Seo-gu, Seo-gu, Incheon to place two service employees who directly control their access or whose employees’ G and name are unknown.
The Defendant and E and F demanded the victim H (the South and the North 47 years of age), who was visiting for the construction and operation of the apartment in the above apartment, to pay the money for organized violence; and if the Defendant and E and F did not pay the money, they received KRW 6 million in total on two occasions as the victim would not have to carry out the construction of the old house in which he had already entered into a contract with the occupant.
The defendant, E,.