The sentence against the accused shall be three million won.

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

Punishment of the crime

The defendant is the chairperson of the D market emergency countermeasures.

1. On March 15, 2016, the Defendant’s interference with business was found to be invalid as a general assembly organized by the offender at the E-Center of the Dmarket merchant in Gwangju-dong-gu, Gwangju-gu, and the victim F to hold a general meeting of the Dmarket merchants in 2016.

From 19:40 on the same day to 19:40 on the same day, by force, interfered with the opening and proceeding of the general meeting of the shareholders of the victim.

2. On March 15, 2016, at the E-Center of the merchants of the above D Market on March 15, 2016, the injured Defendant changed from the victim G to the Defendant at the E-Center of the D Market merchant on March 15, 2016.

For the reason that he stated that he was able to do so, the victim's chest and fluor fluor, which was fluored by his hand, was inflicted on the victim, such as the cage fluor, which requires approximately two weeks of treatment.

Summary of Evidence

1. Partial statement of the defendant;

1. Each legal statement of G, H, I, and F;

1. Recording records;

1. A written diagnosis of injury;

1. Application of statutes on a copy of the public notice to hold an ordinary general meeting;

1. Relevant Article 314 of the Criminal Act, Articles 314 (1) and 257 (1) of the Criminal Act, the selection of fines for criminal facts, and the selection of fines for negligence;

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

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

1. Article 334(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act provides that there was a circumstance to suspect that a merchant intends to elect the president at an ordinary general meeting without following due procedures, such as public announcement;

Even if the defendant goes beyond relief at the place of the general meeting and without holding the general meeting itself, it is not sufficient to supplement that there is no other means or method other than that of the means or method of the act. Thus, it cannot be viewed as an act that does not violate the social norms.

We cannot accept the defendant's assertion that the defendant's obstruction of business is a legitimate act.

Many merchants are the reasons for sentencing.