Defendant shall be punished by a fine of 300,000 won.

If the defendant does not pay the above fine, the amount of KRW 100,000 shall be paid.

Punishment of the crime

On July 5, 2017, the Defendant leased the first floor of Seongbuk-gu Seoul (hereinafter referred to as “instant warehouse”) from D, and the victim E was a lessee who leased the instant warehouse from around 2000 to engaged in an event auxiliary business. The Defendant and the victim agreed to jointly use the instant warehouse until December 2017, 207.

On August 8, 2017, the Defendant: (a) asked the victim to leave the warehouse of the instant case, causing inconvenience to the victim due to many animals of the victim; and (b) requested the victim to leave the warehouse of the instant case; (c) on September 2, 2017, the victim did not respond thereto; (d) arbitrarily replaced the key of the warehouse entrance of the instant case; and (e) opened the entrance door of the instant warehouse of the instant case, but did not open it, thereby obstructing the victim’s event auxiliary work

Summary of Evidence

1. Partial statement of the defendant;

1. Each police statement made to E, F, and G;

1. Application of H’s written Acts and subordinate statutes;

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 claimed victim stored his own goods in a warehouse to the extent that the defendant could not use the warehouse of this case.

Although the defendant requested several times to remove the victim's animals, the victim did not comply with the request.

In order to resolve the dispute with the victim, the defendant temporarily obstructed the victim's access, such as the facts of the crime in the judgment.

Therefore, the defendant's above act constitutes a legitimate act.

2. According to the evidence duly admitted and examined by the court below, it can be acknowledged that the victim has the right to use the above warehouse as the joint lessee or lessee of the warehouse of this case. Thus, the defendant demanded correction of the victim or other legal means against the victim.