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

Where the defendant fails to pay the above fine, one hundred thousand won shall be one day.

Punishment of the crime

The defendant is the personal knowledge of the Er.e., Kimhae-si D.

On August 12, 2017, the Defendant interfered with the damaged party’s work by force over a total of three occasions from August 24, 2017, on the ground that the Victim F did not comply with the commitment, such as the installation of a incineration house of E on the front of the said E company on the ground that the Victim F did not comply with the commitment, and thus, the Defendant’s work was obstructed by force on the part of the victimized party, including GNS vehicle owned by the Defendant, Hone Star FS vehicle owned by E company, Hone Star FS vehicle owned by the E company, a serial bit vehicle, and other construction equipment, such as a road, by using a serial vehicle, to prevent the damaged party from entering the construction site at the same time.

Summary of Evidence

1. Statement by the defendant in court;

1. Statement made by the police with regard to F;

1. Application of statutes on site photographs;

1. Article 314 of the Criminal Act applicable to the crime, Article 314 (1) of the Criminal Act, the selection of fines, and the selection of fines;

1. The punishment shall be determined in consideration of the former part of Article 37, Article 38 (1) 2, and Article 50 of the Criminal Act (the process leading to the crime of this case and the fact that the victim cancels the complaint, etc.);

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

1. The Defendant’s assertion of the Defendant and his defense counsel under Article 334(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act claimed compensation or preventive measures for damages arising from the entry of a construction vehicle. However, the Defendant asserts that it constitutes a justifiable act under the Criminal Act, since the damaged person’s strong construction works and parks a vehicle on his/her own land passively.

The defendant's act of obstructing the progress of the construction of this case cannot be deemed as an act that can be accepted in light of social ethics or social norms, and the defendant's assertion cannot be accepted.