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

If the Defendants did not pay the above fine, 50.

Punishment of the crime

The defendants limited the parking vehicles for neighborhood living facilities by the council of occupants' representatives of the Dong-gu, Suwon-si, the defendants were unable to use the parking lot by the defendants as they limited the parking vehicles for neighborhood living facilities at the council of occupants' representatives. B

1. Defendant B parked FM5 vehicles at the entrance of the underground parking lot (breadth approximately 3.6m, length approximately 26.8m) of the above loan from around 10:12 on October 6, 2012 to around 22:57 minutes on the same day, for about 23 hours and about 57 minutes;

2. Defendant C parks G arche vehicle at the entrance of the underground parking lot of the above Ba for about one hour and thirty minutes from around 11:00 on October 6, 2012 to around 12:30 on the same day;

3. On October 8, 2012, from around 10:00 to around 20:00 of the same day, Defendant A parked the vehicle at the entrance of the above Ba’s underground parking lot for about 22 hours, and obstructed the management of the parking lot in the above Ba management office by forcing the residents of the above Bara to enter the parking lot, thereby obstructing the management of the parking lot in the above Ba management office by force.

Summary of Evidence

1. Defendants’ partial statement

1. Legal statement of a witness I;

1. Statement of the police officer to I;

1. Some of the interrogation protocol of each police officer against the Defendants

1. A complaint;

1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes to field photographs (a form in which a vehicle prevents the entrance of a parking lot)

1. Article 314 (1) of the Criminal Act and Article 314 (1) of the same Act concerning the applicable criminal facts, the selection of fines;

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

1. Judgment on the assertion by the Defendants and the defense counsel under Article 334(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act

1. The Defendants and the defense counsel asserted that, since the Defendants controlled the access to the parking lot of the Defendants at the parking management office, they are allowed to leave the vehicle at the entrance of the parking lot. Since the Defendants have the right to rent the vehicle at the parking lot, the Defendants’ control over the access of the vehicle can not be deemed as the duties with the protected value subject to the crime of interference with business.

As stated in the judgment of the Defendants, the Defendants are as follows.