Defendant shall be punished by a fine of two million won.

If the defendant does not pay the above fine, KRW 100,000.

Criminal facts

The defendant is the owner of the orchard in the permanent residence C and D, and the victim E is a construction business operator who performs housing in G-owned land in F when permanent residence is located.

The Defendant: (a) set up a cargo vehicle on his own land connected to the new site on May 20, 2016 and obstructed the victim’s construction work by force, with the aim of preventing the victim from using the paths located in the orchard owned by the Defendant for the construction of new housing; (b) around 11:00 on May 20, 2016 and around 14:00 on May 30, 2016; and (c) prevented the victim from passing through the said land; and (d) interfered with the victim’s construction work by force.

Summary of Evidence

1. Partial statement of the protocol concerning the examination of the suspect against the defendant by the prosecution;

1. Statement made by the police for E;

1. A criminal investigation report;

1. Application of the Acts and subordinate statutes to the complaint;

1. Relevant provisions of the Criminal Act and Article 314 (1) of the Criminal Act concerning the selection of punishment (Selection of a punishment penalty);

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

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

1. Determination as to the assertion by the Defendant and his/her defense counsel under Article 334(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act

1. The gist of the claim ① There is no ground for the victim to have performed the construction work through the passage at issue in this case before May 20, 2016.

(2) There was no intention to obstruct operations.

(3) The act of the defendant to place a vehicle on a farm road in order to set up a farm building does not constitute the threat of interference with business affairs.

(4) Even if actual business affairs are impeded, if an actor is deemed to exercise legitimate authority, the content or means of such act shall not be permitted in light of social norms, nor shall the actor exercise force that constitutes a crime of interference with business affairs, barring any special circumstance.

2. On the grounds delineated below, each of the above arguments is rejected.

(1) Statement of the police statement report to E and statement of complaint (written evidence of construction, substantial repair, and change of the purpose of use attached thereto);