Defendant shall be punished by a fine of KRW 1,500,000.

When the defendant does not pay the above fine, 100,000 won.

Criminal facts

1. On April 2012, the Defendant alleged that he was unable to receive KRW 860,00,000 from the previous construction business operator, even though he was awarded a subcontract for a hotel work from the victim C (n, 49 years of age) of the representative director B, the Defendant completed the work and paid the price in full.

On May 11, 2015, from around 11:00 to around 10:00 on May 18, 2015, the Defendant: (a) exercised the right of retention on the ground that the previous construction business operator, who was in progress in the area of D hotel land E and four parcels of land, did not grant the construction cost; and (b) obstructed the victim’s public works by force, by blocking the entrance of the site into two containers, thereby preventing the victim from having access to the construction parts.

2. Around 12:00 on May 11, 2015, the Defendant assaulted the victim F ( South and 55 years of age) on one occasion on the ground that the Victim F (hereinafter “F”) neglected his/her exercise of the right of retention and demanded the suspension of construction at the above site and run a pents work around the construction site.

Summary of Evidence

1. Partial statement of the defendant;

1. Each police statement of F, C, and G;

1. A complaint;

1. A written waiver of the right of retention;

1. Application of the photographic Acts and subordinate statutes;

1. Article 314 (1) and Article 260 (1) of the Criminal Act of the relevant Act concerning the facts constituting an offense and the selection of a fine for negligence;

1. Of concurrent crimes, the former part of Article 37, Articles 38 (1) 2 and 50 of the Criminal Act;

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

1. Comprehensively taking account of each of the evidence in the instant case, such as the written waiver of the right of retention, as to the Defendant’s assertion of justifiable act under Article 334(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act, it is difficult to view that the Defendant has a right of retention, and even if a right of retention exists, it cannot be justified to obstruct the victim’s work by exercising the right of retention. Thus, the Defendant