Defendant shall be punished by a fine of KRW 1,000,000.

When the defendant does not pay the above fine, 100,000 won.

Punishment of the crime

The defendant is the representative of the C Co., Ltd. located in Chungcheongnam-gun, and the victim D is the representative director of the E Co., Ltd. located in Chungcheongnam-gun.

The victim had been entering into a construction contract with C on May 15, 2014 with respect to the new construction works on land, such as C and C, F, etc. However, C had delayed construction works, and C had concluded a new construction contract with G on June 19, 2015 and continued construction works.

Around July 1, 2015, the Defendant called her pro-friendly H and directed H to have a container stop on the access road at the construction site, and caused H to have H, on July 1, 2015, around 06:30, F, etc., at the construction site of the land-f, Seosan-si, the Defendant left a railer to the access road at the construction site of the new construction site of the land and interfered with the damaged party’s construction work by force.

Summary of Evidence

1. Partial statement of the defendant;

1. Statement made by the witness D in the fourth public trial protocol;

1. A protocol concerning the examination of suspect of H with respect to the police;

1. Application of the Acts and subordinate statutes concerning container stuff photographs at the construction site;

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 assertion by the Defendant and his defense counsel under Article 334(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act

1. The defendant and his defense counsel asserts to the effect that the act stated in the facts constituting a justifiable act that is dismissed of illegality as it aims to exercise the right of retention.

However, according to the evidence duly adopted and examined by this court, it is recognized that other companies had been engaged in construction work at the construction site as stated in the judgment of the defendant at the time of the defendant's act of recording the facts constituting the crime as stated in the judgment, and only there was a construction site where part of the building materials owned by the defendant was used by the other companies,

The right of retention is recognized as difficult to be seen.