The sentence of punishment shall be suspended separately against the Defendants.

In June 8, 2014, Defendants are likely to interfere with their work.

Punishment of the crime

The Defendants conspired to interfere with the construction of a steel book in front of the above restaurant immediately on the ground that the land used as the summary of the above restaurant by the victim G, the president of the Foundation F, was owned by the said Foundation. On May 15, 2014, the Defendants interfered with the construction of the victim’s steel book by force by letting the workers of the tools and columns gather the tools and studs to the workers who want to construct in the vicinity of the restaurant parking lot, and by blocking the operation by cutting electric power at the same place on or around June 7, 2014. The Defendants interfered with the installation of a steel book by force by force.

Summary of Evidence

1. Each legal statement of witness G and H;

1. Each written judgment;

1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes to field photographs and photographs interfering with business;

1. Article 314 (1) of the Criminal Act applicable to the relevant criminal facts. Article 314 (1) of the same Act

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

1. 50,000 won for each fine to be suspended;

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

1. The Defendants asserts to the effect that the act of obstruction of business as indicated in the judgment constitutes legitimate self-defense or legitimate act, on the grounds that the Defendants’ act of obstruction of business constitutes a passive resistance against illegal construction, even though it does not constitute a non-legal self-defense or legitimate act, taking into account the circumstances such as the construction was anticipated to prevent the cafeteria which would infringe the Defendants’ legal interests after the construction.

On May 15, 2014 and June 7, 2014, the construction of the criminal facts in the judgment, namely, the construction of a pentice that was damaged on the access road to a cafeteria parking lot rather than the construction of a structure directly in front of the cafeteria by the Defendants, is to install a pentice.