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

If the defendant does not pay the above fine, 50,000 won shall be one day.

Punishment of the crime

The defendant is the representative director of Eul Co., Ltd., the subcontractor company that was the contractor of Gangseo-gu Busan Metropolitan City.

1. The Defendant from around 06:30 on March 19, 2012 to the same effect.

F. From 16:00 to Busan Metropolitan City C-2 block at the G-2 block at the Gangseo-gu Busan Metropolitan City Construction Site, the Defendant demanded payment of the construction cost of 4.3 billion won which was not paid due to the construction work performed on D side, the defaulted company, and obstructed the construction work of Daewoo Shipbuilding Construction, which is a company with approximately 9:30 minutes and more than 9:30 minutes of the above site, by moving 20 service security guards into the above site.

2. The Defendant from around 01:50 on April 9, 2012 to the same effect.

E. From 17:15 to 17:15, 15 workers, 20 service expenses, and f.m., “F, Kamera, photographed with a flag,” and, on the outer wall of the site, red letters on the outer wall of the right of retention, interfered with approximately 3 hours and 25 minutes worth work, and interfered with the apartment construction work of the complainant, at least 3 times before and after the Dom.

Summary of Evidence

1. Partial statement of the defendant;

1. Legal statement of witness G;

1. The police statement concerning G;

1. A complaint;

1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes to a criminal investigation report (attached to a legal opinion), investigation report (attached to a statement of assignment of security guards);

1. Article 314 (1) of the Criminal Act and the choice of fines for the crime;

1. Of concurrent crimes, the former part of Article 37, Articles 38 (1) 2 and 50 of the Criminal Act;

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

1. The defendant and his defense counsel's assertion of the provisional payment order was entered at a construction site as stated in the facts constituting a crime in the judgment, but the defendant and his defense counsel asserted that there was no awareness of illegality since the defendant had previously been engaged in construction work and the act was done in the course of exercise of rights due to the failure to receive the construction cost from D.

Domination, and Article 16 of the Criminal Act, "the act of one's own act is not a crime under Acts and subordinate statutes."