The sentence of sentence against the defendant shall be suspended.

Punishment of the crime

Defendant’s attempt to interfere with the construction of a multi-family house built by the victim E in Daegu hydro-gu, and to interfere with the construction on the ground that the said construction would cause damage, such as water dulfing, etc. in the Defendant’s house bed, due to the said construction;

A. On June 19, 2015, around 07:00, at the same place as above, and the person who became aware of the interest among one of the construction sites, prevents the steel work from being performed for about about 20 to 30 minutes;

B. On July 13, 2015, around 14:00, at the same place as above, no brick may be interfered with to remove the bricks after transporting the bricks to be used at the construction site.

Accordingly, the defendant interfered with the building work of the victim by force.

Summary of Evidence

1. Each legal statement of witness E and F;

1. Some statements made against the defendant during the police interrogation protocol;

1. Each police statement made to E and F;

1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes to on-site photographs (sworn photographs);

1. Relevant provisions of the Criminal Act and Article 314 (1) of the Criminal Act concerning the selection of punishment (Selection of a punishment penalty);

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

1. Penalty of one million won to be suspended;

1. Article 70(1) and Article 69(2) of the Criminal Act (100,000 won per day) of the Criminal Act to attract a workhouse;

1. The defendant and his defense counsel asserts that each act of the defendant's decision in the judgment of the defendant is an act aimed at preventing infringement of the defendant's property right and right to life due to the construction of this case, and thus constitutes a legitimate defense, since they constitute an act to prevent infringement of the defendant's property right and right to life due to the construction of this case.

On the other hand, the court below held that the crime of this case was committed in accordance with the evidence of each judgment and the defendant.