beta
Text
The defendant is not guilty. The summary of the judgment against the defendant shall be published.
Reasons
1. The Defendant, as the landowner of Pyeongtaek-si C, agreed to construct a freezing warehouse on the land with the victim E managing the D Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “D”), and registered as the joint representative of the D around January 10, 201.
At around 10:00 on July 19, 2013, the Defendant interfered with the construction of freezing storage in such a way as to make it impossible for the Defendant to open the crypter in front of the crypter who was on work, while the victim was unable to do so for a long time, and the victim did not receive some of the principal and interest of the loan, and the land price received under the name of the Defendant, carried out the construction unilaterally, and the victim did not receive any part of the land price, and did so. The Defendant stated that, at the construction site of the freezing warehouse, the Defendant unilaterally carried out the construction without any delay in connection with the construction.
B. At around 10:30 on July 20, 2013, the Defendant found at the construction site for the same reason as the foregoing paragraph (1) at the above site, and told on the part of the site the employees of the site that “dradddd it is another construction and construction,” and obstructed freezing warehouse construction in the above manner.
C. At around 12:00 on July 24, 2013, the Defendant: (a) installed the entrance door at the construction site in a fast line for the same reason as the foregoing paragraph (1); and (b) installed a signboard prohibiting entry into the construction site to prevent equipment such as dump trucks and digging machines, which are construction vehicles, from entering the said site.
2. Determination:
A. The Defendant asserted that, as the land owner or the party to whom D’s authority and responsibility was taken over by Pyeongtaek-si C, the Defendant exercised legitimate authority, such as requesting the suspension of construction, and that it did not interfere with the victim’s freezing construction by force.
B. The evidence duly adopted and examined by this court is based on the evidence.