A defendant shall be punished by a fine of 500,000 won.

When the defendant does not pay the above fine, 100,000 won.

Punishment of the crime

The Defendant is a member of the G Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as the “G”)’s factory located in Chungcheong-dong H, Chungcheongnam-dong, and is affiliated with the G Young-dong Branch of the Daejeon High-dong, Chungcheongnam-dong Branch of the Korea Metal Trade Union (hereinafter referred to as the “MMno-dong Branch”).

L is a director in charge of managing G Young-dong factories.

1. On October 22, 2014, the Defendant interfered with the management of the factory by force, such as maintaining order in the work hours of the victim at work time due to the victim’s desire to take care of the victim and blocking the victim’s front in the G Young-dong Factory parking lot at around 08:10.

2. The Defendant, at the time, at the place specified in paragraph 1, and at the time, at the place, and the number of workers, including G Youngdong Factory Management Division K, refers to the victim not to sound bitched.

“Indecent conduct or sexual misconduct,” Domination or Domination, and nishea.

Cper made a public insult of the victim by speaking as “a dog” in a large sound.

Summary of Evidence

1. Partial statement of the defendant;

1. The legal statement of K Witness;

1. The names of witnesses and M recorded in the file for recording a witness examination among the three-time trial records;

1. Application of the statutes governing video recording files recorded in Chapter 2 of the video CDs;

1. Relevant Article 314(1) of the Criminal Act, Article 311 of the Criminal Act, Article 311 of the Criminal Act, and the selection of fines for a crime;

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

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

4. Determination as to the assertion by the Defendant and his defense counsel under Article 334(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act

1. The gist of the assertion is that the victim did not perform other duties except the act of photographing at the time of the instant case, and the act of photographing itself does not constitute a business as referred to in the Criminal Act.

In addition, the defendant does not take photographs against the victim.

It shall not be deemed that the defendant's act constitutes a threat as prescribed by the crime of interference with business, such as only demanding violence or the absence of intimidation.