2012 Highest 8193 Business Interference

1. A;

2. B

3. C.

4. D;

The court records (prosecutions) and the court records (trials)

Law Firm E (for Defendant A)

Law Firm F (Defendant B)

March 13, 2013

1. The defendant A shall be punished by imprisonment for eight months, by imprisonment for three years, by imprisonment for three years, by imprisonment for four months, respectively.

2.Provided, That with respect to defendants A, C, and D, the execution of each of the above punishments shall be suspended for two years from the date this judgment becomes final and conclusive.

Criminal facts

Defendant B is the representative director of Company G (hereinafter referred to as the “G”), H is the representative of the I Guard, Defendant A is the employee belonging to the said guard company, Defendant D, Defendant C, and the otherJ in the case are the members of “L” of the I Guard Business.

On November 14, 2008, Defendant B ordered L Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as “L”) to conclude a contract for the construction of site for Class II district planning zone M. L had completed all the construction of site equivalent to KRW 4,779,00,000 for the total construction cost around the end of July 2010, Defendant B did not pay the construction cost at all. However, from October 8, 2010 to Scheon Industrial Complex (hereinafter referred to as “the construction site of this case”), Defendant B carried a banner, “in the course of exercising the right of retention,” setting up three container boxes, and exercised the right of retention.

On the other hand, from December 17, 2007 to July 19, 2010, Defendant B loaned the principal amount of KRW 6 billion from the savings bank as security at the private and 22 lots of land owned by G including the instant construction site, and 0 and 13 lots of land owned by the Defendant, but is not repaid. As the savings bank did not repay this, it conducted a public sale procedure for the instant construction site on March 201 through the K non-Real Estate Trust Co., Ltd., and L completed the lien report with respect to the instant construction site as the preserved bond.

Defendant B continued possession of the instant construction site on L, and exercised the lien, was unable to recover claims from the Korea Savings Bank because the public sale procedure did not proceed properly. Accordingly, Defendant B introduced the said H from the side of the Korea Savings Bank for the purpose of obstructing the exercise of the lien. On June 22, 2011, the Korea Savings Bank ordered H to enter the security contract of KRW 20 million on the said H and the instant construction site to control H’s access to the construction site so that L may not exercise the lien.

Accordingly, H instructed Defendant A, Defendant D, and Defendant C, etc. to observe the construction site at the above construction site from June 201 to around the above construction site. However, L’s employees did not have been able to prevent them from entering and leaving a container stuff owned by L, which was installed for the purpose of exercising the right of retention. The fact was reported to Defendant B. Defendant B instructed H to put L’s container stuff before the public auction on the construction site at the construction site at the Seocho-gu Busan, Busan, on October 201, and issued L’s KRW 80,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,0000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000).

Accordingly, Defendant A instructed Defendant D and Defendant C, etc., etc., on October 27, 201, “I have come to and out of the construction site of L, and during that period, I would like to enter and leave the construction site.” From October 27, 2011 to October 28, 2011, Defendant D, C, J, etc. had the said D, C, etc. interfered with outside the entrance of the construction site of this case, from October 27, 2011 to October 05:00, Defendant C, etc.: (a) called “I would enter and depart from the construction site of this case,” and (b) had the said 3 containers, such as 10 persons on the name of 03:30 on Oct. 28, 201, and (c) had the victim forced the victim to use the containers, and (d) had the victim’s right of retention inside and outside the P, etc., and (d) had the victim called “I 4.”).”

Therefore, the Defendants in collusion with the above H and the person in poor name interfered with the work of exercising the right of retention for the victim L.

Summary of Evidence

1. Each legal statement of the defendant A, C, and D;

1. Defendant B’s partial statement

1. Legal statement of witness Q and P;

1. An interrogation protocol of H by the prosecution (third time);

1. A protocol of examination of part of R by the prosecution;

1. The police statement of S;

1. A standard contract for construction works, a report on right of retention, a notice of public auction, a construction right and a statement of waiver of right of retention, a security contract, a drawing, a certificate, and a standard subcontract contract for construction works;

1. Sacheon, on-site photographs, site photographs, and container photographs;

Application of Statutes

1. Article applicable to criminal facts;

Articles 314(1) and 30 of the Criminal Code

1. Selection of punishment;

Each Imprisonment Selection

1. Suspension of execution;

Defendant A, C, and D: Determination of the sentence against the Defendants on the grounds of sentencing under Article 62(1) of the Criminal Act; (1) Defendant B, contrary to the aforementioned Defendant’s assertion, is to take into account the following: (a) the Defendants led the commission of the crime; (b) actively H in the course of the investigation; (c) intended to conceal the facts of the crime; (d) the victims used violent means to promote their own corruption; and (e) the degree of damage to the victims; (b) the Defendant A, C, and D decided to not choose the suspension of execution; and (c) the extent of the crime is somewhat minor; (d) the Defendants A, C, and D recognized the crime; and (e) there was no criminal conviction above the suspended execution. In addition, the Defendants’ age, character and conduct, health conditions, home environment, motive, means, results, etc., shall be determined as prescribed in the sentence against the Defendants’ instant crime by taking into account all the various sentencing conditions indicated in the records of the instant case, including the circumstances after the crime.

Judges Kim Gin-ok