beta
Text
1. Defendant shall be punished by a fine of KRW 1,000,000;
2. If the defendant does not pay the above fine, fifty thousand won.
Reasons
Punishment of the crime
Defendant
A, a, a person who has been operating the previous cel (registration: D, business registration: E, signboard: C) and is currently in unpaid position.
From March 6, 2012, the same person has been from around the same day.
B. From the 30th day of the month, the victim G located in Busan Southern-gu claimed the cancellation of the real estate exchange contract concluded with the victim at the entrance of the cel located in Busan-gu, and obstructed the telecom business by force by preventing the entry of customers by blocking the entry of one ton vehicle owned by the defendant, bemere lease, shock, etc.
Summary of Evidence
1. Partial statement of the defendant;
1. The statement of G and H;
1. A complaint;
1. Application of statutes on site photographs;
1. Article 314 (1) of the Criminal Act applicable to the crime;
1. Selection of an alternative fine for punishment;
1. Determination on the Defendant’s assertion under Articles 70 and 69(2) of the Criminal Act for the confinement of a workhouse
1. According to the evidence seen earlier, the Defendant leased the instant parking lot and used it as a parking lot annexed to the instant cartel, and the status of the lessee of the instant parking lot was succeeded to the victim while transferring the instant cartel to the victim. Accordingly, the victim occupied and used the instant parking lot as an affiliated parking lot. The instant parking lot was attached to the instant cartel, and the instant parking lot appears to be a single business facility from appearance to appearance. As such, the Defendant terminated the lease contract on the instant parking lot between the victim and the owner, and the Defendant and the owner established the lease contract on the instant parking lot, and thus, even if he prevented the entry of the instant parking lot, it does not constitute an interference with the business of the victim.
2. Therefore, even if the victim does not have the right to occupy and use the instant parking lot as alleged by the Defendant, the victim does not have the right to occupy and use the instant parking lot.