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

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

Punishment of the crime

The injured party B is a construction business operator who received reinforced concrete construction related to Suwon-gu D's Studio construction from the company C, and the defendant is the person responsible for the construction of wooden steel reinforced concrete construction of the above construction.

On March 16, 2017, from around 08:00 to around 17:00 on March 17, 2017, the Defendant asserted that the wage that was paid in excess of the original agreement was higher than that of the victim at the construction site, and obstructed the legitimate construction work of the victim by force, such as posting a letter “C Company E, the president of the E company, and B, the payment of construction cost promptly,” etc., so that the victim can see the company as if the victim did not have wage.

Summary of Evidence

1. Partial statement of the defendant;

1. Second suspect examination protocol of the accused against the accused;

1. The police statement concerning B;

1. On-site photographs [the “fluorial force” of the crime of interference with business refers to all the forces capable of suppressing and mixing the free will of a person, either tangible or intangible or intangible, and thus, violence as well as threats, social and political position, pressure by pressure, etc. by the victim’s free will, and in reality, it does not require the victim’s free will. However, in light of the offender’s status, number of persons, surrounding circumstances, etc., the determination of whether the act constitutes force ought to be made objectively by taking into account all the circumstances, such as the date and place of the crime, motive, purpose, number of persons involved in the crime, form of force, type of duty, type of duty, and the status of the victim (see Supreme Court Decision 2009Do5732, Sept. 10, 209). Moreover, in establishing the crime of interference with business, it is sufficient that the result of interference with business should have actually been caused, and that there is a risk of interference with business (see Supreme Court Decision 2005Do474, Apr. 27, 2007).