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

When the defendant does not pay the above fine, 100,000 won.

Punishment of the crime

1. On June 6, 2016, the Defendant interfered with the Defendant’s business operation at the construction site of Pyeongtaek-si B, and obstructed the victim’s restaurant operation by removing water transformation facilities that supply electricity to the victim’s restaurant in order to interfere with the operation of the restaurant while exercising the right of retention at the above construction site, and by blocking the supply of electricity.

2. The Defendant damaged the victim’s property by removing the water transformation facilities that supply electricity to the restaurant operated by the victim for the same reasons as the date and place described in paragraph (1), and by blocking the supply of electricity, the Defendant damaged the victim’s property by making all of the air conditioners in the restaurant, which had been stored in the restaurant, occupy the victim’s market share food materials.

Summary of Evidence

1. Each legal statement of witness C, D, and E;

1. Statement to C by the police;

1. A complaint;

1. Application of the Acts and subordinate statutes to investigation reports (in the face of an excursion ship stating the construction site);

1. Relevant Article 314 (1) of the Criminal Act, Article 314 (1) of the Criminal Act (the point of interference with business), Article 366 (1) of the Criminal Act (the point of causing destruction and damage), and selection of fines for each crime;

1. Of concurrent crimes, the former part of Article 37, Articles 38 (1) 2 and 50 of the Criminal Act;

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. The defendant asserts that there was no intention to interfere with the business and damage to property, since the victim was unaware of the fact that he was operating the restaurant, the defendant did not intend to interfere with the business and damage the property.

According to the aforementioned evidence, the Defendant also operated a restaurant operated by the victim, taking full account of the following: (a) the Defendant was a meal at the restaurant operated by the victim; and (b) the cafeteria operated by the victim, such as eating at the cafeteria operated by the victim at the construction site at the time of the instant case; and (c) the cafeteria operated by the victim was normally in operation.