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 shall be the chairman of the representative meeting B.

The Defendant, on May 31, 2018, was unable to perform duties, such as preventing customers from having access to the restaurant by creating a substitute staff at a height of 40 cm in front of the entrance of the restaurant "F" (Cho, Dho), operated by the Victim E (V), around 06:00 on May 31, 2018, on the ground that the chemical team should be installed in front of the Seoul Gangdong-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government B commercial building C and D.

Accordingly, the defendant interfered with the victim's cafeteria by force.

Summary of Evidence

1. Partial statement of the defendant;

1. Legal statement of witness E;

1. Legal statement of witness G and H in part;

1. Each police suspect interrogation protocol against I, J and G;

1. A complaint;

1. Report on investigation (related documents verified by the suspect I);

1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes concerning investigation reports (on-site investigation);

1. Relevant Article 314 (1) of the Criminal Act concerning criminal facts, the choice of a fine, and the choice of a fine;

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

1. The defendant asserts that Article 334(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act provides that since he/she performs his/her duties as the chairperson according to a resolution of the council of occupants' representatives, he/she has no intention to interfere with business, or is illegal

The following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court: (a) the commercial entrance of this case had been moved-type tree flower around 2006, but it appears that there was no flower force from five years to five years after the fire brigade was destroyed and used as an entrance; (b) it is difficult to confirm the parts of the building in the instant commercial building land cadastre, copy of the register, building register, etc.; and (c) the commercial building of this case appears to have no entrance outside the entrance; and (d) around March 2018, the building of this case was established by the defendant at the front of the restaurant of this case; and (e) it was constructed to enable the defendant to pass by the front of the entrance of the instant restaurant; and (e) the defendant re-entered the commercial entrance of this case at around 06:00 on May 31, 2018.