1. The defendant shall be punished by a fine of 500,000 won;

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

Punishment of the crime

The defendant is a person who has been awarded part of the building B.

At around 05:00 on December 3, 2012, the Defendant, in collusion with C, D, etc., obstructed the work of each of the above victims by force by putting 30 security guards belonging to the said building in contact with the victim G operating a mutual clothes store of F in the said building, and the victim I operating a new store with the trade name of H, by allowing them to freely enter and leave the said building, by putting 30 or more security guards belonging to the said building on the said building, and allowing them to place 30 or more security guards belonging to the said company at the said building.

Summary of Evidence

1. Statement by the defendant in court;

1. A complaint filed in the course of G production (one investigative record, No. 392 pages);

1. On-site photographs and photographs of assignment of services (one copy of investigation records, No. 396 pages);

1. Statement made by the police in G (one right to investigation records, No. 401);

1. A letter of complaint prepared by the I (a copy of investigation records, No. 411);

1. The application of Acts and subordinate statutes to the police statement of I (one investigative record, Law No. 419 pages);

1. Articles 314 (1) and 30 of the Criminal Act applicable to the crime;

2. Articles 40 and 50 of the Criminal Act of the Commercial Competition.

3. Selection of an alternative fine;

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

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

1. The Defendant and the defense counsel asserted that the act does not interfere with the business of the victim G and I. However, according to the above evidence, the employees of the service company under the direction of the Defendant did not interfere with the business of the victim G and I, thereby preventing free access by blocking the inside entrance of the building of the F clothing store No. 102 G operation by blocking the employees of the service company under the direction of the Defendant from having access to the building, and the 101-2 of the I’s operation also resulted in considerable hindrance to the entry and business of toilets, parking lots, etc. due to the fact that the physically sound number of adults have opened the entrance.