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

However, the execution of the above punishment shall be suspended for one year from the date this judgment becomes final and conclusive.

Punishment of the crime

The Defendant, on December 23, 2016, entered into a contract to sublease all of the private letter or business rights and equipment to D, and the victim E entered into a contract to sublease the said private letter or business rights and equipment from D around November 14, 2018 and operate the said private letter or business rights and equipment.

However, as the Defendant did not pay the deposit and the rent in accordance with the D Agreement, around June 19, 2019, the Defendant filed a lawsuit against D on the part of the 6th floor of the building B (Cracks or the part of the ticket) and won the lawsuit. On October 22, 2019, the Defendant received the succession execution clause against the victim.

On December 19, 2019, the Defendant, on the sixth floor of the above B building, carried out a compulsory execution on the part where Cracks or betting places have been installed based on the succeeding execution clause, and arbitrarily cut off all the six floors and brought a wave in front of the elevator.

On December 21, 2019, the victim newly installed a ticket office on the opposite part in which there was an existing ticket office at the 6:00 am around the 6:0 am.

On the same day, the victim was unable to operate a betting house or a betting box by correcting the corridor door of the sixth floor above.

As a result, the Defendant interfered with the victim’s business of friendship or operation by force from December 19, 2019 to December 27, 2019.

Summary of Evidence

1. Partial statement of the defendant;

1. Statement to E by the police;

1. On-site photographs, etc. submitted by the complainant;

1. (Duplicate) Execution Clause, lease agreement, construction specifications, etc. (the defendant asserts to the effect that there was no risk of interference or interference with the victim's business by the defendant's act. However, in establishing the crime of interference with business, the result of interference with business does not require actual occurrence, but it is sufficient that there was a risk of interference with the business (see Supreme Court, Mar. 11, 1997).