1. Defendant A shall be punished by a fine of one million won, and Defendant B shall be punished by a fine of five hundred thousand won.

2. Defendants each of the above facts.

Punishment of the crime

1. Defendant A

A. On July 3, 2014, the Defendant: (a) knew on July 3, 2014, around 08:00, that the victim was employed and engaged in the work to adjust the land site on the land owned by the victim E; and (b) prevented the victim from doing the work to expect on the knicker; and (c) obstructed the victim’s work by force.

B. On July 3, 2014, the Defendant destroyed posts, which are owned by the victims of the city, by cutting up posts installed as a marking of land boundary at the same place as the preceding paragraph on July 3, 2014.

2. On July 2, 2014, around 12:10 on July 2, 2014, Defendant B: (a) directed the victim E at the place indicated in the foregoing paragraph 1’s (a), and instructed the victim, other than those with no knowledge of the circumstance, to park G E business vehicles at the construction site; and (b) interfere with the victim’s construction work by force.

Summary of Evidence

1. The Defendants’ respective legal statements

1. Application of the respective statutory statements of witnesses E, H and I to the Acts and subordinate statutes;

1. Defendant A of the pertinent legal provision pertaining to the facts constituting an offense: Article 314(1) of the Criminal Act, Article 366 of the Criminal Act (the point of interference with business), and Article 366 of the Criminal Act (the point of damage to property), and Article 314(1) (the choice of penalty) of the Criminal Act;

1. A aggravated criminal defendant: the former part of Article 37 of the Criminal Act, and Articles 38 (1) 2 and 50 of the Criminal Act;

1. Article 70(1) and Article 69(2) of the Criminal Act for the attraction of a workhouse;

1. As to the assertion of Article 334(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act, the Defendants and the defense counsel asserts that since the injured party intends to cut the trees of the Defendants, it constitutes a legitimate defense or a legitimate act, since it prevents the Defendants from interfering with their respective duties.

According to the above evidence, the Corporation was a construction work conducted by the injured party as the land rearrangement, and the Defendants failed to perform the construction work before commencing the instant construction work, and the place where the construction was obstructed was also the land of the injured party.