The defendant is innocent. The summary of this judgment shall be notified publicly.

1. The summary of the facts charged in the instant case was leased from June 17, 2008 to June 17, 2013 to the victim D the part from the second floor to the fourth floor (hereinafter “instant real estate”) among the commercial buildings owned by the Defendant in Changwon-si, Changwon-si, a member of Changwon-si, to the Defendant.

Since February 27, 2012, when the victim was subject to a disposition of business suspension for a period of one month from around February 27, 2012, the Defendant did not pay the said commercial building at once, and paid electric power charges to the said commercial building, and resumed the supply of electricity, and subsequently, on April 2, 2012, the Defendant prevented the electrical line part leading to the said telecom through the said telecom by using the color tape and prevented the electrical line part leading to the said telecom, and by force, by taking the measures of cutting the telecom operated by the victim by means of correcting the said electrical power with locks.

2. In establishing the crime of interference with business, the result of the interference with business does not require actual occurrence, and it is sufficient that the occurrence of the risk of interference with business occurs.

However, if there is no concern about the occurrence of the result, this crime is not established.

(See Supreme Court Decision 2005Do5432 Decided October 27, 2005). In other words, D concluded a lease agreement with the Defendant to lease the instant real estate from June 17, 2008 to June 17, 2013, D was subject to a disposition of business suspension for one month from February 27, 2012, D sought to resume its business on April 5, 2012, while asserting that it did not actually conduct its business until June 17, 2013, which is the expiration date of the lease agreement for the instant real estate, and that D attempted to resolve the full-time system to resume its business.