The sentence of punishment against the Defendants shall be suspended.

Punishment of the crime

Defendant

A was the chairperson of the D organization, the secretary general of the D organization, and the executive officers of the D organization comprised of 19 members from August 1, 2015 to July 30, 2017, and the victim E and the victim F are people engaged in fireworks delivery businesses.

On September 2015, for the purpose of interfering with delivery services to G H et al. that did not join the D organization, the Defendants stated that “A victim E operating J to a cafeteria located in Gyeongnam-gun I and the victim F operating K to “I am good for each Association member, (delivery) and free to collapse,” and that the victims of frighting, for about three months by the end of December 2015, the Defendants did not comply with the request for delivery of G.

As a result, the Defendants conspired to interfere with the delivery of the victims' fireworks by force.

Summary of Evidence

1. Legal statement of E and F;

1. Each police statement of E and F;

1. Determination as to the assertion by the transcript Defendants and the defense counsel

1. The gist of the assertion argues that the Defendants stated that the victims should give priority to the delivery of the fireworks to the members of the D organization, and that there was no stipulation to the effect that they should not deliver the fireworks of G, not its members.

2. The crime of interference with business under Article 314(1) of the Criminal Act is established when a person interferes with another’s business by deceptive means or by force. The term “defensive force” in this context includes not only assault and intimidation, but also pressure by social, economic, political status, and royalty, etc., as the person’s free will is charged with any force that is capable of suppressing and mixing a person’s free will, tangible or intangible, and thus is not charged (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 2003Do504, Mar. 25, 2005; 2007Do2178, Jun. 14, 2007). The evidence duly adopted and examined by the court is based on the evidence duly adopted and investigated by the court, “F” by telephone from G on September 25, 2015.