Defendant shall be punished by a fine of one million won.

If the defendant does not pay the above fine, KRW 100,000.

Punishment of the crime

The Defendant is a co-born of C, the owner of land B in Gangnam-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government.

On May 2016, the Defendant: (a) newly constructed and sold F on D land adjacent to the land owned by the Defendant; (b) sold the said land to the land by the buyers; (c) used the said land as the land by the buyers; and (d) decided to interfere with the sales business of the victim by preventing the buyers of F, who sell the said land from using the said land as the land.

On May 24, 2016, the Defendant set up posts in front of the Fgate used by buyers in the above place as a passage at approximately two meters, and prevented them from entering the entrance of the said F’s entering vehicles.

As a result, the Defendant interfered with the trade contract of the victim by force at the same time.

Summary of Evidence

1. Statement by the defendant in court;

1. Statement protocol by the police for E;

1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes to investigation reports (Submission of documents for decision on civil procedure which is a complainant);

1. Article 185 of the Criminal Act (a point of interference with general traffic) and Article 314 (1) of the Criminal Act concerning the facts constituting an offense;

1. Articles 40 and 50 of the Commercial Concurrent Crimes Act (the punishment imposed on a person who interferes with general traffic and his/her duties, and the punishment imposed on a person who interferes with heavy general traffic);

1. Selection of an alternative fine for punishment;

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

1. The reason for sentencing of Article 334(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act with regard to the order of provisional payment is an unfavorable circumstance in light of the circumstance leading up to the Defendant to commit the instant crime, and the fact that the crime is not good, etc.

On the other hand, it seems that the Defendant committed the instant crime because it is recognized that the Defendant recognized the instant crime and opposed to the Defendant, from the standpoint of the Defendant, the Defendant’s land was mainly used as the access to the new construction by the injured party, and thus, it appears that the Defendant was committed the instant crime because it could not receive any consideration even though it was used as the access to the new construction by the injured party.