The sentence of each sentence against the Defendants shall be suspended.

Punishment of the crime

Defendants are both D hotel(Gu E hotel) and hotel(Gu E hotel).

In the indictment from March 23, 2017 to 01:00 the following day, the Defendants stated “from March 23, 2017 to 201:00 on the indictment.” However, according to the evidence record, the above date and time are acknowledged to read “from March 23, 2017 to 02:00 on the following day.” However, according to the evidence record, the above date and time are recognized to read “from March 23:25, 2017 to 01:00 on the following day.” Since the correction of the above criminal facts does not materially affect the Defendants’ right to defense, it is modified ex officio.

In Jeju, the guest room, from 2 to 8 floors, such as No. 232 and 236 of the D hotel (former E hotel) located in F, is known that this guest room is chaind by consultation between the guest room owners and the Dispute Resolution Bank.

If this notice is damaged, it shall be legally responsible for entering or impairing the guest room without permission of the owner of the guest room.

On March 23, 2017, a warning form written in A4 as “the guest room ownership white” was attached, and it obstructed the victim H’s hotel operation business by deceptive means by attaching a warning form stating false facts as if there were such facts, even though it was not closed by consultation with the G in charge of the settlement of disputes.

Summary of Evidence

1. Legal statement of a witness I;

1. Part of the witness J’s legal statement;

1. Statement made to I by the police;

1. Relevant photographs;

1. An investigation report (in the case of the complainant I and the defendant), an investigation report (Hp loan K and the defendant's defense counsel) [the defendant and the defendant's defense counsel are illegal business and businesses with no protective value under the Criminal Code. Thus, the defendant's unilateral operation of the victim's hotel for D hotel (the former E hotel, hereinafter "the hotel of this case") is not a crime of interference with the defendant's business.

The argument is asserted.

However, the term "business" subject to the protection of interference with business under the Criminal Act refers to a business or business that is engaged in an occupation or continuous, which is worth protecting from the harm caused by an illegal act of another person, and the contract or administrative act that forms the basis for such business.