Defendant shall be punished by a fine of KRW 1,000,000.

When the defendant does not pay the above fine, 100,000 won.

Punishment of the crime

On April 2, 2014, the Defendant entered into a standard contract for sale and purchase of forest products (hereinafter “instant contract”) with respect to pine trees planted in C and 50,579m2 (hereinafter “instant forest”).

On October 15, 2014, at around 08:00, the Defendant obstructed C’s business of transporting pine trees by blocking the front of a vehicle taking out pine trees, on the ground that C violated the instant contract, on the ground that it cuted large pine trees in violation of the instant contract.

Summary of Evidence

1. Partial statement of the defendant;

1. Each legal statement of witness C and E;

1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes to copies of the standard contract for trade of forest products, site photographs, and copies of the F afforestation application;

1. Article 314 (1) of the Criminal Act applicable to the crime;

1. Selection of fines;

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

1. Judgment on the assertion by the defendant and his/her defense counsel under Article 334(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act

1. The defendant and his defense counsel asserted that there is no intention to interfere with business since C prevents the removal of pine trees in order to urge the performance of obligations, since C did not perform a liver service contract concluded with the defendant.

2. However, in the crime of interference with business, the intent of the crime of interference with business does not necessarily require the intention of the purpose of interference with business or planned interference with business, but it is sufficient to recognize or anticipate the possibility or risk of causing the result that the business of another person will be interfered with by his own act, and its recognition or prediction is not only final but also conclusive, but also it is so-called willful negligence.

(See Supreme Court Decision 2008Do9410, Jan. 15, 2009). As long as the Defendant prevented the transport of pine trees from taking out the way of the vehicle on which he/she was trying to transport pine trees, it can be sufficiently recognized that the Defendant had intention to interfere with business.

The contract of this case is cut.