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

If the defendant does not pay the above fine, 50,000 won.

Punishment of the crime

A victim C was engaged in the work of installing a low temperature warehouse in which two waves, etc. are kept by purchasing D at the Naju City, and putting them into the said low temperature warehouse. However, on the ground that E land used as the existing access road was the land of the F door, the said members of the clan connected the new access road in double connection with the hump to the hump, and set up a wooden standing signboard stating the “Prohibition of Access” in front of the existing access road, thereby completely blocking the entry of the vehicle. In order to use other access roads, the victim purchased G land to use other access roads, and continued the work of hump, etc. using the connected house connected to the land.

However, when the Defendant came to know that the access road to G land, which the victim started to use as a new access road, was invaded by part of the H land owned by the Defendant, as seen above, the victim obstructed the victim’s business by force by means of force, by measuring the boundary of H land around 08:00 on June 26, 2012, while surveying the boundary of the land around 08:00 with knowledge that the victim was performing the work by suffering from a breath, etc. through a new access road.

Summary of Evidence

1. Partial statement of the defendant;

1. Each legal statement of the witness C and I;

1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes to a decision (2012Kahap814, provisional disposition, such as prohibition of traffic obstruction, etc.), on-site aerial photography, investigation report (Attachment of outputs of the site), investigation report (cadastral request and attachment of cadastral drawings);

1. Relevant provisions of the Criminal Act and Article 314 (1) of the Criminal Act concerning the selection of punishment;

1. Determination on the assertion of the defendant and his/her defense counsel under Articles 70 and 69(2) of the Criminal Act for the confinement of the workhouse

1. The Defendant alleged that he was the H land as stated in the facts constituting the crime.