Defendant shall be punished by a fine of KRW 700,000.

Where the defendant fails to pay the above fine, one hundred thousand won shall be one day.

Punishment of the crime

On May 2, 2015, from around 12:00 to 13:00 on the same day, the Defendant interfered with the legitimate management of the victim, the inaugural general meeting, by force, on the ground that: (a) from around 12:00 to around 13:00 on May 2, 2015, the Defendant entered the management unit C, which was promoted by the owners of the 5th floor of the Seoul Metropolitan Government, such as the victim E, and did not notify all members of the inaugural general meeting and did not reach the quorum; and (b) the meeting should not proceed; and (c) the Defendant was unable to proceed.

Summary of Evidence

1. Partial statement of the defendant;

1. Recording of E statements in the fourth public trial records;

1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes to on-site mobilization reports (limited to F statements);

1. Article 314 of the Criminal Act applicable to the crime, Article 314 (1) of the Criminal Act, the selection of fines, and the selection of fines;

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

1. The defendant and his defense counsel's assertion of the defendant and his defense counsel under Article 334 (1) of the Criminal Procedure Act of the Provisional Payment Order asserts that there was no work itself which became the object of obstruction of business at the time of the instant case, and that the defendant's act recorded in the facts charged is a legitimate act, and thus

However, the crime of interference with business is established when there is a situation that is likely to interfere with the business as so-called "an abstract dangerous crime," and the actual result of interference is not required. However, considering comprehensively considering the nature of the management of this case, the scheduled meeting meeting and the scheduled method of meeting, the relationship between the participants and the defendant, the detailed contents of the act of interference with the defendant, the situation at the time of the meeting, etc., as stated in its reasoning, the defendant's act,

Since the defendant's act can be fully recognized, it constitutes a crime of interference with business.

In addition, the defendant's act is justified in motive or purpose.