Defendants shall be punished by a fine of KRW 500,000.

In the event that the Defendants did not pay the above fine, 100.

Punishment of the crime

As the Defendants were unable to receive construction cost from D companies, they were willing to prevent D companies from entering the vehicles and people on the construction site performed by D companies.

On June 4, 2016, from around 10:30 to 14:30 on the same day, the Defendants: (a) prevented the victim F (5) from entering the construction site of the Jongno-gu Seoul Jongno-gu from entering the site of the construction site of the Bara Construction Project from entering the Jongno-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government, by preventing the victim’s vehicle and people from entering the site of the construction site of the construction site of the Jongno-gu.

As a result, the Defendants conspired to interfere with the work of the injured party by force.

Summary of Evidence

1. Some statements concerning the Defendants in the police interrogation protocol

1. Protocols of examination of witnesses concerning the witnessF;

1. Each report on investigation;

1. Application of the Act and subordinate statutes to the notification of construction site photographs and the cancellation of contracts for construction works;

1. Article 314 (1) and Article 310 of the Criminal Act and the choice of a fine for the crime, Article 314 of the same Act, and the selection of a fine for the crime;

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

1. Article 334 (1) of the Criminal Procedure Act, applicable to the order of provisional payment;

1. Determination as to the Defendants and their defense counsel’s assertion under Article 186(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act, which bear the costs of lawsuit

1. The summary of the claim lies in the fact that the Defendants established a steel frame and dys at the entrance of the construction site under the pretext of exercising the right of retention for the construction cost as stated in its reasoning. However, since the construction site of this case was suspended from before this case, the Defendants’ act did not cause interference with the business or cause the risk of causing interference with the business.

In addition, the defendants' act is the exercise of legitimate authority to receive the payment of the unpaid construction cost, and it does not constitute a threat of interference with business affairs.

2. Determination

A. (i) According to the statement of the witness F in the witness examination protocol as to the (i) argument of the witness F, the witness F is the subject of this case in this Court.