Defendant shall be punished by a fine of KRW 5,000,000.

If the defendant does not pay the above fine, 100,000 won shall be one day.

Punishment of the crime

From September 21, 2012 to February 21, 2013, the Defendant installed containers at the entrance of the construction site to prevent damage to the victim F from carrying out construction works at the entrance of the third parcel of land owned by the victim F, such as Gyeonggi-ri City, D, and E, at the construction site site, and installed a banner called during the exercise of the right of retention.

However, the Defendant is not a company or a person who has undertaken the construction work at the site of the victim’s new house construction work site, and G, which had been performing the construction work at the said site, had already been prepared and completed a letter of waiver of the construction work with the victim around September 7, 2012, and the victim paid G all the expenses related to the construction work, such as material cost and wages, such as wages, etc. unpaid from the construction site. Although the Defendant knew that the victim’s creditor had no legitimate right to retention at the construction site, the Defendant interfered with the victim’s construction work by force.

Summary of Evidence

1. Partial statement of the defendant;

1. Partial statement of witness G;

1. Statement made by the police with regard to F;

1. Application of the Acts and subordinate statutes governing the waiver of construction works, the settlement of the construction price, the payment of wages, and the application of on-site photographs;

1. Relevant Article 314 (1) of the Criminal Act concerning the crime, the choice of a fine, and the choice of a fine;

1. Articles 70(1) and 69(2) of the Criminal Act concerning the custody of a workhouse (the defendant and his/her defense counsel) [the defendant and his/her defense counsel] did not constitute a crime of interference with business since he/she did not know that he/she had a right to occupy the construction site as a transferee of G’s claim for the construction price, had a claim for the construction price, and

The argument is asserted.

In full view of the following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and investigated by the court, the above assertion is without merit.

① On September 7, 2012, G drafted a letter of renunciation (the nine pages of investigation records) to F, and the Defendant acquired his/her construction claim by transfer.

did not notify (393 pages of investigation records);