Defendant shall be punished by a fine of KRW 1,000,000.

If the defendant does not pay the above fine, 50,000 won.

Punishment of the crime

The defendant was the owner of the above land as the representative director of E Co., Ltd., which is located in Da in Ma, from November 15, 2010 to five years, agreed to terminate the lease contract in the middle due to the circumstances of the victim after leasing the above land to F.

The Defendant, from around 08:30 on April 18, 2012 to 16:00 on the same day, had G interfered with the victim’s relocation of its workplace by force, by way of force, on the ground that the Defendant failed to resolve various problems arising from the termination of the lease agreement, such as defects in order to remove equipment, such as the equipment, such as the cream, scrap strawer, etc., owned by the principal in the project site, to the window in which the project site was located, such as the equipment, such as the equipment, such as the equipment, waste disposal construction, container repair, and the payment of damages.

Summary of Evidence

1. The defendant's partial statement in the first protocol of trial;

1. The statement of witness F in the second protocol of the trial, the witness I in the second protocol of the trial, and each part of the witness G in the second protocol of the trial;

1. Complaint;

1. Application of partial Acts and subordinate statutes to the field photographs;

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

1. Articles 70 and 69 (2) of the Criminal Act for the detention of 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. As long as the victim F did not perform his duty to restore waste treatment, etc. upon termination of the lease agreement, the victim’s taking-out of the equipment cannot be deemed as a business subject to protection of the crime of interference with business under the Criminal Act. The Defendant occupied the above equipment as an exercise of commercial lien to obtain performance of his/her duty to restore the said equipment to the original state, and thus the Defendant asserted that it constitutes a justifiable act even if the victim asserted against the Defendant to attempt to remove the equipment in an unlawful manner.

2. Determination:

A. Criminal Act.