Defendant shall be punished by a fine of one million won.

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

Punishment of the crime

The Defendant is a person in charge of the duties of the chairperson of the emergency countermeasures against the C Building (hereinafter referred to as “victim”) and the victim D (hereinafter referred to as “victim D”) is a building company undergoing construction of officetels and multi-household housing from August 2, 2016 to E in two parcels.

On May 7, 2017, the Defendant: (a) around 17:00, at the site of the foregoing construction; (b) on the ground that the victim company did not resolve the dispute over road usage fees between C building residents, the owner of the F innju City, which is the access road to the said construction site; and (c) continued to use the said road, the Defendant installed a steel fence with about 10 meters in length at the two places of the said access road and obstructed the access of the construction vehicle.

Accordingly, the Defendant interfered with the victim company's official photographic behavior by force.

Summary of Evidence

1. Partial statement of the defendant;

1. Legal statement of witness G;

1. A complaint filed by G;

1. On-site photographs;

1. Application of the statutes governing the statement protocol to G;

1. Article 314 (1) of the Criminal Act and Article 314 of the same Act concerning the crime, the selection of fines;

1. Article 70(1) and Article 69(2) of the Criminal Act to attract a workhouse;

1. As to the claim of Article 334(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act, the Defendant asserts that the Defendant did not interfere with the business of the victim by installing the Defendant’s steel pents.

According to the records, the defendant's construction was not completed at the time when the steel pent was installed at two entrances; the victim company did not use the access road located at the place where the steel pents were installed for the period of installing the steel pents; the victim company did not have access road to the place where the steel pents were installed; however, the victim company did not have access road to the site outside the place where the steel pents were installed; however, if the access road to which the steel pents were installed is to prevent the access road, the accessibility to the building north of the date among five buildings where the steel pents were newly constructed is significantly lowered; and thereafter, the fact that the steel pents were removed.

On the other hand, if the facts are identical, the defendant's bar system.