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

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

Punishment of the crime

On December 2, 2011, the Defendant concluded a lease agreement with the victim C, stating that “The Defendant leased one column of a store in the E traditional market located in Young-gun D, Jeonnam-gun, with the victim (hereinafter “instant store”) at KRW 1 year and KRW 600,000 per month.”

After the conclusion of a lease agreement, the Defendant paid the rent for about 8 months, but later, refused to pay the rent on the ground that “the injured party does not install sunlight and sewerage facilities in his store.” The lease agreement was terminated.

After April 2013, the Defendant: (a) occupied a road in front of the store while leaving the instant store; (b) obstructed the leased business of the victim by force, such as blocking the entrance of the store from wooden boards or a living vessel license, etc.

Summary of Evidence

1. Partial statement of the defendant;

1. Each legal statement of witness C and F;

1. The police statement concerning G;

1. A real estate lease contract;

1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes governing field mining inspections;

1. Relevant provisions of the Criminal Act and Article 314 (1) of the Criminal Act concerning the selection of punishment;

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

1. Judgment on the Defendant’s assertion under Article 334(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act

1. The gist of the claim is that the Defendant only carried on business in the land owned by the Young-gun located in front of the instant store, and does not interfere with the victim’s business by interfering with the passage of the store or by preventing access thereto.

2. Determination

A. The relevant legal doctrine states that “the act of a merchant operating at a shop to display and sell goods on the adjoining road of the store and to make another merchant not run his/her business without permission constitutes ordinary commercial customs within the market.”

In addition, if the front passage of the store is immediately adjacent to the store, the real business area of the store is also considered to have been expanded to the passage route.

(See Supreme Court Decision 2013Da3040 Decided May 9, 2013). (B)

In this case, the store of this case is 1.