Of the facts charged in the instant case, the charge of interference with business is acquitted. Of the facts charged in the instant case, the prosecution against assault is instituted.

Defendant

As to the assertion of innocence and dismissal of prosecution, it shall be deemed as follows.

1. Determination as to assault among the facts charged in the instant case

A. Around October 20, 2012, around 23:30 on October 20, 2012, the summary of the facts charged committed assault by the victim E, who seeks to remove an unauthorized warehouse using crums in accordance with the order to voluntarily restore the illegal building and the crums in front of the C warehouse in Ischeon-si, Leecheon-si.

B. The facts charged in the instant case are the crimes falling under Article 260(1) of the Criminal Act, which cannot be prosecuted against the victim’s express intent under Article 260(3) of the Criminal Act.

However, according to the records, it can be recognized that the victim has withdrawn his/her wish to punish the defendant after the prosecution of this case. Thus, the prosecution of assault among the charges of this case is dismissed pursuant to Article 327 subparagraph 6 of the Criminal Procedure Act.

2. Determination as to interference with business among the facts charged in the instant case

A. The summary of the facts charged is as follows 1. A.

At the time and place mentioned in the port, the victim F, an engineer of the Poke, carried out the work of removing an unauthorized warehouse in accordance with the direction of the victim E, and the victim F obstructed the work related to the removal of the victim's warehouse by force, such as leaving the above Ponds onto the Ponds and leaving the suspect, leaving the Ponds of the Ponds, and blocking the movement of the Ponds on the front of the Ponds.

B. According to the reasoning of the judgment, the entry of the witness E’s legal statement and the witness F’s statement in the third trial record, it is recognized that the Defendant, as in the facts charged, was engaged in shabling the e’s bat and preventing the scke from moving.

However, the above evidence and the defendant's legal statement, the statement of the witness G's legal statement in the third trial date, the investigation report and the face-to-face office ordered the complainant to remove.