beta
Text
Defendant
B, D, and E shall be punished by a fine of 300,000 won.
Defendant
B, D, and E do not pay each of the above penalties.
Reasons
Punishment of the crime
The Defendants asserted that they are executives of each G apartment building management unit, and Defendant E was sentenced to imprisonment with prison labor for six months at the Seoul Eastern District Court on February 2, 2017 and the decision on October 28, 2017 became final and conclusive on October 28, 2017.
On December 23, 2016, at around 09:50 on December 23, 2016, the Defendants entered the office of the commercial conference located on the first floor of Songpa-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government apartment house, and then the Defendants cannot recognize the power of the prosperity conference.
In this regard, the president H, the director I, and the director of the management division were refused to leave the Defendants, such as the appointment of security guards.
Defendant
D is the victim J, and 'N' is prohibited from doing so.
“Along with the sound of this year” to the victim H, Defendant E refers to “Ahhhh”, and Defendant E refers to why us should be seen as a business.
Defendant B said, “A” and Defendant A and C refused to leave the office with the rest of the Defendants.
Accordingly, the Defendants, upon receiving 112 reports, interfered with the victims' management of commercial buildings and their prosperity offices by force for about 8 minutes until the police called, and rejected the demands from the victims to leave their offices at the same time.
Summary of Evidence
1. The Defendants’ respective legal statements
1. Legal statement by the witness J;
1. A protocol concerning the examination of each police suspect with regard to I and H;
1. Investigation report (ctv);
1. Previous convictions in Defendant E: A copy of a written reply to inquiries, such as criminal history, and the text of the judgment [the Defendants and the defense counsel]. As such, the Defendants’ act was conducted in the course of exercising legitimate rights to peruse and copy data such as accounting books, etc., and thus, the Defendants’ act was legitimate. However, the Defendants’ act was asserted as legitimate act. However, the developments leading up to the occurrence of the instant case, the situation before