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

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

Punishment of the crime

The defendant is the representative director of the D Co., Ltd. and the victim E is the manager of F Co., Ltd.

D Co., Ltd. had been notified of the termination of the contract due to the reasons that it failed to comply with the completion date extended by E around May 18, 2010 while performing construction works ordered by F to construct a new building in the research institute by ordering the F Co., Ltd. to do so, the D Co., Ltd. was exercising the lien on the ground of the claim for the construction price, and was occupying the construction site from May 18, 2010 to August 4, 2010.

On December 2013, 2013, the Defendant prepared a false complaint with the purport of having E receive criminal punishment from the “H Hospital” located in the Hacheon-gu Seoul Metropolitan City G, Sincheon-gu G, and submitted the above complaint to the police officer in charge of receiving the complaint at the Criminal Department of the Gyeonggi Mine Police Station around December 20, 2013, on the following grounds: “E mobilized of defective numbers of health body rooms at the construction site occupied by D Co., Ltd., and interfered with Defendant Company’s business over several times.”

Then, around December 23, 2013, the Defendant made a statement at the Gyeonggi Mine Police Station to the effect that “E interfered with the Defendant’s exercise of the right of retention by mobilization of 12 service personnel at the site where the Defendant exercises the right of retention on June 10, 2010, thereby interfering with the Defendant’s exercise of the right of retention by means of sprinking the Defendant’s daily operation outside the factory, etc., and E, by mobilization of 20 service personnel at the same place around July 27, 2010, interfered with the Defendant’s exercise of the right of retention by the same method, and E, by mobilization of 10 service personnel at the same place as a patrolman on August 2010.”

However, on July 22, 2010, there was a fact that E visited the construction site around July 28, 2010 in order to urge the implementation of the above provisional disposition after the notice of the provisional disposition prohibiting access to the construction site and interference with business was delivered to the defendant.