Defendant

A shall be punished by a fine of 500,000 won.

Defendant

If A does not pay the above fine, 100,000 won.

Punishment of the crime

Defendant

A is one of its own additional D Housing Redevelopment Partnership, and Defendant B is one of its husband's members.

On April 14, 2014, at the D Housing Redevelopment Association office located in Yeongdeungpo-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government on April 18:00, Defendants jointly attended the meeting place with the knowledge that 32 representatives of the above association are attending the meeting place, and that the victim F, the president of the association, is in progress, and Defendant A, despite the proposal of the union employees, made a large speech by changing the right to wrong speech, Defendant B, Defendant B, at a large interest rate of 30 minutes, stating that “patriarche is off,” and Defendant A, who received it from Defendant A, interfered with the legitimate representative meeting of the victim by force for about 30 minutes.

Summary of Evidence

1. Some police interrogation protocol against the Defendants

1. The police statement concerning F;

1. A complaint;

1. On-site photographs;

1. Written opinion;

1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes to report investigation results;

1. Defendants: Articles 314 (1) and 30 of the Criminal Act;

1. Punishment to suspend the sentence (Defendant B) 300,000 won;

1. Articles 70 and 69(2) of the Criminal Act (100,000 won per day) of each Criminal Act;

1. Suspension of sentence (Defendant B) Article 59 (1) of the Criminal Act (see, e.g., Article 59 (1));

1. Judgment on the assertion by the Defendants and their defense counsel under Article 334(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act

1. The summary of the argument is that the Defendants were harshly treated as to the internal corruption, etc. of the union, explain such circumstances at the meeting of the above representatives and act as stated in the facts of the crime in order to raise their opinions. The Defendants’ act does not constitute “compact” in the crime of interference with business, and even if not, it constitutes a “act that does not violate the social rules” under Article 20 of the Criminal Act, and thus, it constitutes a justifiable act.