The sentence of sentence against the defendant shall be suspended.

Punishment of the crime

On February 7, 2012, the Defendant: (a) around 11:20 on February 7, 2012, “E Real Estate” located in Mapo-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government D; (b) the Defendant’s mother became aware of the details of brokerage commission and management expenses of real estate that the Defendant contracted; and (c) the Defendant called “I cannot but inform the parties.”

In the process, the Defendant interfered with the victim G business, which is the operator of the said E real estate, by force over about 50 minutes, by preventing customers from entering the real estate office due to noise, etc.

Summary of Evidence

1. Partial statement of witness F in the third protocol of the trial;

1. Application of the law to include some statements in the police interrogation protocol against the defendant

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

1. A fine not exceeding 500,000 won to be suspended;

1. Articles 70 and 69 (2) of the Criminal Act (50,000 won per day);

1. Article 59(1) of the Criminal Act (i.e., finding a real estate brokerage office in which the mother mediates real estate transactions on behalf of the mother, and requesting the confirmation of management expenses, etc. related to real estate transactions on behalf of the mother, cannot be deemed as interference with business. Accordingly, the act of the Defendant and his defense counsel with the purport that the act of entering the Defendant’s criminal facts in the Defendant’s judgment does not reach “comforcing” as a constituent element of the crime of interference with business.