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

If the defendant does not pay the above fine, 50,000 won shall be paid.

Punishment of the crime

At around 15:00 on November 13, 2012, the Defendant: (a) presented out of the victim’s employees and obstructed the victim’s operation of the said store by force, such as leaving the store entrance door locking out to lock, on the ground that the victim did not partially grant the right of lease to the “E skin management office” store operated by the victim in Switzerland-si, Chuncheon-si; and (b) obstructed the victim’s operation of the said store by force.

Summary of Evidence

1. Partial statement of the defendant;

1. Police suspect interrogation protocol of the accused;

1. Each police statement made to D, G, and H;

1. A report on investigation;

1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes to filing a complaint (including field photographs);

1. Relevant provisions of the Criminal Act and Article 314 (1) of the Criminal Act concerning the selection of punishment;

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

1. Determination as to the assertion by the defendant and his defense counsel under Article 334(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act of the provisional payment order

1. The defendant and his defense counsel asserted that the defendant's act does not constitute a legitimate act and constitutes a crime since the victim who acquired the right of lease of the skin management room from F as the defendant and the defendant did not pay some of the acquisition price, and the rent and management expenses to be paid to the Barun, a lessor, did not pay them. Thus, the defendant's act does not constitute a legitimate act.

2. The crime of interference with business under Article 314(1) of the Criminal Act is established when a person interferes with another’s business by deceptive means or by force. The term “defensive force” here includes not only assault and intimidation, but also pressure, such as social, economic, and political status and pressure by force (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2003Do504, Mar. 25, 2005).