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

On September 10, 2012, at the D construction site located in Seopopo City C on September 10, 2012, Samsung C, which is a contractor of the said construction work, under the management of the Samsung T&T and the large forest industry (ju), the subcontractor, (ju), and the manufacturing of block and the installation and use of the block. For the purpose of concrete building theory necessary for the work, the F-M-M-M-M-U-U-U-U-U-U-U-U-U-U-U-U-U-U-U-U-U-U-U-U-U

At this time, the Defendant, along with G, H, I, etc. from the time to 10:17 on the same day, brought the agenda at the entrance of the DD project team for nine minutes, and sited and interfered with the construction vehicle from the construction site by holding it off.

As a result, the Defendant, in collaboration with the above G, has obstructed the construction work of the victim Samsung C&T, the large forest industry, the partner company, and the victim (the victim), the subcontractor, who is the subcontractor, by obstructing the operation of the construction vehicle, such as the vehicle with a large quantity of 9 minutes by force.

Summary of Evidence

1. Partial statement of the defendant;

1. Written statements of J and K;

1. Application of the Acts and subordinate statutes on photographs by organizing the data on the adjustment of each damage and the evidential data;

1. Relevant provisions of the Criminal Act and Articles 314 (1) and 30 of the Criminal Act concerning criminal facts, the choice of fines (Consideration of interference with business, duration of continuation, etc.);

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

1. The defendant and his defense counsel's assertion on the assertion of the defendant and his defense counsel under Article 334 (1) of the Criminal Procedure Act alleged that the defendant's act constitutes a justifiable act to resist the illegality of construction stated in the facts constituting a crime. However, although the defendant's act in the ruling was aware that another person's business is obstructed, it cannot be deemed a justifiable act because it is difficult to view that the defendant's act satisfies the requirements such as the reasonableness of the means or method of the act, balance between the protection interest and the infringement interest, and supplement that there is no other means or method than the act.