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

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

Punishment of the crime

From April 2017 to June 2017, the Defendant installed a digging range at the new construction site located in Seongbuk-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government, which was implemented in the Dispute Resolution Co., Ltd., from July 23, 2017 to July 13:00 of the same month, on the ground that the Defendant did not receive wages even after having worked for the digging season at the new construction site located in Seongbuk-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government.

Accordingly, the defendant interfered with the work of the injured party by force.

Summary of Evidence

1. Partial statement of the defendant;

1. Each legal statement of witness D and E;

1. An investigation report (related to attaching photographs at the entrance of the construction site), an investigation report (related to the submission of suspect text messages);

1. Application of statutes on site photographs;

1. Article 314 of the Criminal Act applicable to the crime, Article 314 (1) of the Criminal Act, the selection of fines, and the selection of fines;

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

1. Determination on the assertion by the Defendant and his defense counsel under Article 334(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act

1. As the alleged defendant did not receive the payment of the construction cost, he is entitled to exercise the right of retention as stated in the facts constituting a crime in the judgment with the secured claim.

Therefore, the defendant's act constitutes a justifiable act and therefore is not illegal.

2. In order to establish the right of retention, it should be recognized that the defendant lawfully commenced possession.

According to the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court below, the defendant was found to have entered the construction site without permission as stated in the facts constituting a crime, as the defendant did not receive construction payment, and as a result, the defendant could not be deemed to have the right of retention claimed by the defendant, in full view of the above facts acknowledged.

Therefore, the defendant and his defense counsel cannot be accepted.