The defendant is not guilty. The summary of the judgment against the defendant shall be published.

1. The summary of the facts charged in the instant case is as follows: (a) the Defendant obstructed the victim’s newspaper company’s business by force by force, by blocking electricity supplied to the instant building on the ground that the victim did not deliver the instant building leased by himself/herself from a newspaper company operated by Macheon-si (hereinafter “instant building”) that was located in the instant building on October 2012, on the ground that the victim was not in delivery of the instant building; and (b) opening the entrance door of the instant building with locks to the building, and by blocking the victim from having access to the instant building by driving a wire-frame around the building.

2. The Defendant asserts that the Defendant does not interfere with D’s newspaper work because he had already been engaged in the work of newspaper workers in the instant building in October 2012, since he had already been engaged in the work of newspaper workers in the instant building.

3. Determination

A. Thus, as indicated in the facts charged, as to whether a policeman D was engaged in a newspaper work in the instant building, as described in the facts charged, the health room and the third trial record as shown in the witness D’s partial statement in the witness D’s protocol [three pages and four pages), the domain name F, G, and H (hereinafter “three domain names of this case”) are included in the third trial record.

) The statement stating that the Internet E-Examination, which is the witness, was rendered by November 28, 2012 (9 pages), from the end of August 2012 to October 2012, and the statement stating that I and J were gathered from the building of this case (10 pages), and the witness D’s partial statement in the 6th protocol [the statement stating that an online newspaper service was made after September 10, 2012 (2 pages)] among the suspect interrogation protocol to the prosecution against the defendant, part of D’s statement [the statement stating that the defendant was unable to carry out the online publication service of the E-Examination, which was carried out at the time due to the defendant’s act such as the entry of the facts charged, (117 pages)], and the police’s statement about D at the time of the instant case’s Internet.