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

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

Punishment of the crime

On February 2, 2014, the Defendant requested the F-factory Office for the Operation of Victim E, Inc., Ltd., a company employees G of the above company to change the certificate of the corporate seal impression, but was rejected, provided that two employees of the victim in the above office were placed outside the office, and revised the entrance of the office and interfered with the business operation of the victim's factory by force.

Summary of Evidence

1. Partial statement of the defendant;

1. Each legal statement of witness G and H;

1. Each police statement made with respect to G and H;

1. A complaint;

1. The defendant and his defense counsel asserts to the effect that there was no fact that there was no investigation report (to hear statements by witness H), investigation report (to request the certificate of corporate seal impression as stated in the facts constituting a crime in the judgment of the defendant, to take a bath, to have the victim’s employees out of the office, or to correct the entrance of the victim’s office.

However, G has consistently made a statement from the investigative agency to this court to the purport that “the Defendant sought a certificate of the personal seal impression of the victimized person’s body and demanded the certificate of the injured person’s corporate seal impression in the office, and as the Defendant did not comply with it, the Defendant made his/her own name and H out of the office, and H also has consistently made a statement consistent with G’s above statements from the investigative agency to this court.

In light of the existence and consistency of each statement made by G and H, the attitude of each statement made by this court, and the fact that each statement made by G and H does not seem to be false, the credibility of each of the above statements is recognized. According to this, it is sufficiently recognized that each of the above statements was interfered with the victim's business by means of making it inside G and driving away G and H from the office of the damaged person, such as facts constituting a crime in the judgment of the defendant.

Therefore, the above argument of the defendant and his defense counsel is rejected.