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

The defendant is the representative director of Corporation D.

On April 13, 2017, the Defendant: (a) around 08:00 to 14:00, and around January 13, 2017, the Defendant, despite having acquired ownership through a voluntary auction on January 13, 2017, Company D, a neighboring mining operator, repeated access by the victim Fump trucks and car-sp trucks, a neighboring mining operator, without the owner’s permission, thereby hindering the owner’s exercise of ownership; (b) directed the head of the site G to keep the vehicle from passing through; (c) kept the container in a way in which the vehicle cannot pass; and (d) cut the container on both sides of the passage and cut the container.

Accordingly, the Defendant interfered with the victim's release of mineral products by force.

Summary of Evidence

1. Partial statement of the defendant;

1. Each police statement made to H and G;

1. Complaint;

1. A investigation report (Attachment of local satellite photographs and similar case data);

1. Mining area guidance, certified copy of registry (E), hearing by telephone from public officials in charge of viewing and listening, and the application of Acts and subordinate statutes attached to NAV guidance on the land of this case;

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 Defendant’s assertion under Article 334(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act

1. The gist of the assertion is that the victim's right of passage to E in Ansan-si (hereinafter "the passage of this case") does not exist and therefore the victim's right of passage is illegal to shipping of mineral products using the passage of this case, and therefore, it does not constitute a crime of interference with business.

In addition, the defendant did not have any intention to interfere with the business.

2. Determination

A. The term "business" subject to the protection of interference with business under the relevant legal principles refers to a business or business that is engaged in or continuously, which is worth protecting from invasion by another person's unlawful act, and it does not necessarily require a contract or administrative act that is the basis of such business to be lawful, provided that the contract or administrative act, etc. which is the basis of such business is not necessarily legitimate