Defendant shall be punished by a fine of one million won.

If the defendant does not pay the above fine, KRW 100,000.

Punishment of the crime

At around 13:00 on September 15, 2018, the Defendant: (a) installed a container stuff at the entrance of the contractor and prevented the victim from entering the construction site; and (b) obstructed the victim’s construction work by force, by installing one container stuff at the entrance of the contractor; and (c) preventing the contractor from entering the construction site.

Summary of Evidence

1. Partial statement of the defendant;

1. C’s legal statement;

1. Written statements prepared in D;

1. Submission of a copy of the standard contract for private construction works (16 pages of investigation records);

1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes to photographs (investigative records 94-99 pages) attached to the on-site photograph (investigative records) and written statement C;

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

1. Articles 70 (1) and 69 (2) of the Criminal Act to attract a workhouse;

1. Judgment on the assertion by the defendant and his/her defense counsel under Article 334(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act

1. The Defendant asserted that there are only one container stuff, as indicated in its reasoning, and the Defendant did not interfere with the victim’s construction work, because there is a need for a space to take rest or to discuss countermeasures against those who did not receive construction expenses in the event of farming.

There was a wide space between the place where a container stuff was installed and the building, and there was no hindrance to the access of the construction vehicle.

Therefore, the crime of interference with business is not established against the defendant.

2. Determination

A. The establishment of the crime of interference with business is not required to have the result of interference with business, and is likely to cause the result of interference with business. The crime of interference with business is established even where the propriety of business is hindered, not itself.

(Supreme Court Decision 2009Do8506 Decided March 25, 2010). In addition, the term “influence of business” includes not only interference with the execution of business, but also hindering the management of business.

Supreme Court Decision 200Na1448 delivered on March 29, 2002