Defendant shall be punished by a fine of KRW 2,000,000.

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

Punishment of the crime

The defendant is the owner of the land in front of the entrance of the "D" parking lot at Osan-si (hereinafter referred to as the "instant land"), and the victim E is a person who operates the "D".

On September 5, 2013, from around 23:00 to around 15:00 on September 6, 2013, the Defendant obstructed the victim’s D management affairs by installing a container with a length of 12 meters and height of 3 meters (hereinafter “instant container”) using the vehicle on the ground that the victim was awarded a successful bid at the entrance of his/her D parking lot, thereby preventing the customer from having access to the vehicle using the said D.

Summary of Evidence

1. Partial statement of the defendant;

1. Legal statement of witness E;

1. Statement to E by the police;

1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes to the complaint, a certified copy of cadastral map (excluding the portion in hand), a certificate of full payment of successful tender price, and photographs;

1. Relevant Article 314 (1) of the Criminal Act concerning criminal facts, the choice of a fine, and the choice of a fine;

1. Articles 70 (1) and 69 (2) of the Criminal Act for the detention of a workhouse;

1. Determination as to the assertion by the defendant and his defense counsel under Article 334(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act of the provisional payment order

1. The Defendant asserts that, around September 3, 2013, before E purchased the instant land through the auction procedure, the instant container was installed according to the intention to use the instant land, and that there was no intention to interfere with the business.

In light of the above evidence, E paid the successful bid price for the instant land on September 5, 2013, and filed a complaint under the charge of interference with business on September 6, 2013, and E consistently stated that the instant container was installed after the successful bid price was paid, and that E reported the occurrence of the instant container at the time of the complaint to the effect that the Defendant would have installed the instant container on September 5, 2013, and even if E appears to have installed the instant container on July 8, 2013, it was to be remodeled at the latest until September 5, 2013.