The sentence of sentence against the defendant shall be suspended.

Punishment of the crime

The defendant is the resident of the Seo-gu Busan apartment, and the victim D is the head of the management office of the above apartment.

The Defendant, while working as the head of the management office, tried to interfere with the attendance of other victims, such as the victim’s unfair use of management expenses, etc., and obstructed the duties of the head of the management office of the victim by force, such as blocking the victim’s numberless vehicle front of the victim’s operation who goes to work before the above management office for about 100 minutes from January 29, 2014 to October 30, 2014.

Summary of Evidence

1. Partial statement of the defendant;

1. Each police statement made to D, E, and F;

1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes to Busan District Court decisions and photographs;

1. Relevant provisions of the Criminal Act and Articles 314 (1) and 30 of the Criminal Act concerning the choice of punishment;

1. A fine of 700,000 won to be suspended;

1. Articles 70(1) and 69(2) of the Criminal Act (100,000 won a day);

1. The defendant and his defense counsel's assertion about the defendant and defense counsel in light of Article 59 (1) of the Criminal Act (as seen below, the crime of interference with business is established in light of the procedural aspect of dismissal of the Director of the Management Office, but the 261 household in excess of the number prescribed by the Rules of Employment at the time consented to dismissal of the Director of the Management Office; the defendant was simply included in the act of interference with business in which apartment residents collectively participated; and the defendant did not have any other criminal record other than the suspended sentence in 1983) and the defendant and defense counsel agreed to dismiss the victim from the position of the Director of the Management Office on January 25, 2014; and on January 28, 2014, G, the council of occupants' representatives, notified the victim of dismissal on January 28, 2014, which is the date of the occurrence of this case, did not constitute the crime of interference with business by losing the status of the Director of the Management Office.

According to the records, the victim is also a victim.