1. The defendant shall be punished by a fine of 2.5 million won;

2. If the defendant does not pay the above fine, 10,000 won.

Punishment of the crime

1. The Defendant, from November 5, 2013 to November 20, 2011, interfered with the victim’s construction work by force by installing strings and strings on the part of the victim E, which is an access road to the construction site of the victim E, the victim E, who was in W, from November 5, 2013 to November 20 of the same year.

2. The Defendant interfered with the victim’s construction work by force by installing strings and strings on the E-owned access roads, which are access roads to the site of the victim G located in Macheon-si and Ma, from around December 2013 to February 4, 2014, to prevent the passage of construction vehicles.

Summary of Evidence

1. The recording of statements by witnesses G in the third protocol of trial;

1. Boundary restoration surveying result map, each certified copy of the register, and permission for road connection;

1. Application of statutes on field photographs;

1. Article 314 (1) of the Criminal Act concerning the facts constituting an offense;

1. Of concurrent crimes, the former part of Article 37, Articles 38 (1) 2 and 50 of the Criminal Act;

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

1. As to the assertion of the Defendant, the defense counsel and the Defendant’s defense counsel under Article 334(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act regarding the provisional payment order, they asserted that the Defendant knew of the victim’s access road to the construction site other than the nearest to the issue in this case, and that the victims’ vehicle invaded the victim’s access road to the gas station or the gas station site where the Defendant obtained permission to occupy and use the road to prevent the victim from entering the construction vehicle to interfere with the gas station business. Thus, there was no intention to interfere with the business.

However, even according to the defendant's assertion, it is recognized that the victims had intention to obstruct the passage of vehicles because they knew that they actually used the part on the access road to the station of the defendant and the part on the access road to the station of the defendant and the part on the access road to the F are not affected by the intention in this case.

In addition, according to the above evidence, this case is examined.