Defendant shall be punished by a fine of KRW 700,000.

If the defendant does not pay the above fine, the amount of KRW 100,000 shall be paid.

Punishment of the crime

From March 27, 2015 to April 3, 2015, the Defendant: (a) in the dry field owned by the Defendant’s wife C, located in Gangwon-gun B; and (b) even when the Victim D, leased the dry field from the Defendant, it obstructed the Defendant’s growing business by planting large 1,500 stocks at that place; and (c) in the dry field owned by the Defendant’s wife C, the victim D, who was in a dry field leased from the Defendant.

Summary of Evidence

1. Partial statement of the defendant;

1. D's statement among the suspect interrogation protocol of the accused against the prosecution;

1. A lease contract and a contract for the purchase and supply of agricultural products;

1. An investigation report (a photo of a damaged dry field, a complainant), A’s wood photo and field photograph [the amount of damage caused by the fire] are acknowledged to have been planted by the Defendant on the ground that the Defendant did not make any contact without paying rent. According to the aforementioned evidence, it is sufficient that the crime of interference with business is established unless the result of interference with business does not actually occur, and if there is a risk of causing interference with business. It is sufficient that the crime of interference with business is established not by itself, but by the legal doctrine that interference with business is established even if the propriety or fairness of business is obstructed (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 200Do5669, Oct. 25, 2002; 2006Do4487, Dec. 21, 2006)].

1. Relevant provisions of criminal facts: Article 314 (1) of the Criminal Act;

1. Detention at a workhouse: Articles 70 (1) and 69 (2) of the Criminal Act;

1. Provisional payment order: Article 334 (1) of the Criminal Procedure Act;