Defendant shall be punished by a fine of three million won.

If the defendant does not pay the above fine, KRW 100,000.

Punishment of the crime

around 16:00 on February 13, 2016, the Defendant interfered with the victim’s business of operating a farm by force by preventing access to the farm by restricting the width of the access route from 4 to 2.5 meters on the edge of the above farm, on the ground that: (a) from the access road to the E farm located in the State-owned city operated by the victim C, and on the ground that, if the victim’s share of money was made, it may cause damage to the business of developing resort facilities being promoted by the Defendant in preparation for the use of malodor, etc.; (b) the Defendant installed a container at the edge of the access road to the farm and limited the width of the access route to the farm from 4 to 2.5 meters; and

1. Partial statement of the defendant;

1. Statement of the witness F in the three-time trial record of the interrogation of the suspect against the defendant in part of the police;

1. Statement of the police statement related to G;

1. A complaint prepared in C (including attached data), a criminal investigation report (Attachment to a field satellite photo), and a criminal investigation report (Binding data submitted by a complainant representative);

1. Application of statutes governing field photographs and recording records;

1. Article 314 (1) of the Criminal Act applicable to the relevant criminal facts and Article 314 (Selection of Penalty) of the Criminal Act;

1. Article 70(1) and Article 69(2) of the Criminal Act to attract a workhouse;

1. Summary of the argument on the assertion of the Defendant and his defense counsel under Article 334(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act

A. The defendant's act is within the scope of the legitimate exercise of property rights delegated by the clan that is the landowner.

B. The Defendant’s act prevents the victim from engaging in livestock raising business in the instant livestock shed without permission under the Livestock Industry Act, and the victim’s duty is not only subject to criminal punishment pursuant to Article 53 of the Livestock Industry Act, but also is socially contrary to the degree that it is considerably unacceptable in social life due to the degree of illegality. Thus, the Defendant’s act is not subject to protection of interference with business.

(c)

The defendant's interference is merely a temporary work to prepare for the livestock breeding business.