Defendants shall be punished by a fine of KRW 500,000.

The Defendants did not pay each of the above fines.

Punishment of the crime

Defendant

A is the head of Seo-gu E Village, Defendant B, the head of the above community senior citizens, F, and G and H are residents of the above community.

피고인들은 F 등과 함께 피해자 I이 마을 내 샷 시공장을 신축하는 것을 막기 위해 마을 진입로 일부를 절토하여 공사 차량 출입을 저지하기로 하였다.

Accordingly, on March 5, 2016, the Defendants cut the part at the edge of both sides of the above road as 2.1m and 4.5m wide, 1m and 4.5m wide, 4.5m wide, which is located in the Seo-gu Daejeon, Seo-gu, Daejeon, Seo-gu, Daejeon, and cut the body and cut the body, and he stored concrete, ice, etc. from the above cut part, in the side, and installed a rail in each part of the above cut part and interfered with the entry of the construction.

Accordingly, the Defendants in collusion with F and others interfered with the traffic of the public, and at the same time interfered with the new construction of the victim's factory by force.

Summary of Evidence

1. The Defendants’ partial statements in the first public trial protocol

1. The legal statement of K Witness;

1. A protocol concerning the examination of each police suspect with respect to F, H and G;

1. Signature of residents' consent to the L clan resolution and the closure of access roads to E-Gu;

1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes to photographs of crime scene;

1. The Defendants of the relevant legal provisions concerning criminal facts: Articles 185, 30 (a point of interference with general traffic) of the Criminal Act and Articles 314 (1) and 30 (a point of interference with business) of the Criminal Act;

1. Commercial concurrent defendants: Articles 40 and 50 of the Criminal Act

1. Defendants who choose punishment: Fines for negligence

1. Defendants to be detained in the workhouse: Articles 70(1) and 69(2) of the Criminal Act

1. The Defendants of the provisional payment order: Determination on the Defendants and their defense counsel’ assertion under Article 334(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act

1. Although the Defendants acknowledged that the Defendants committed the same act as indicated in the facts charged of the instant case, the Defendants could sufficiently proceed with the construction of a new factory by using another road.