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 the owner of a “E” restaurant operated by the Victim D (Inn, fifty-six years of age) located in Dongjak-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government, and the victim of a building parking lot attached to the restaurant is using it as a warehouse for food materials, etc., and requested several times to correct it, but the victim did not comply therewith, and the victim was dissatisfied therewith;

1. On January 8, 2015, around 18:06, a restaurant was sought to deal with the above restaurant and the victim requested to deal with it, but the victim did not comply with the request, thereby obstructing the victim’s work by force by force on the ground that the shot up on the floor of the restaurant is moving back to the floor of the restaurant, and that the shot up the shot up in the air conditioners, and that the shot up the shot up, which were in the air conditioners, might be at the time when the victim might be at the time when the sick, and that the above parking lot problem was fast down, taken measures against the above parking lot problem, and raised about about 10 minutes.

2. The same year;

2. around 09:00, on the ground that the victim continued to comply with his/her request at the same place, the victim obstructed the victim’s business by force by locking the door door at the entrance of the above parking lot containing food materials, etc. from using food materials, etc. as locks managed by himself/herself, thereby preventing the victim from using food materials, etc.

Summary of Evidence

1. Entry of the defendant in part in the first trial record;

1. Legal statement of the witness D;

1. Video CDs;

1. Application of each statute on photographs;

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

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

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

1. As to the assertion of the Defendant and his defense counsel under Article 334(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act regarding the charges, the Defendant and the defense counsel attempted to prevent any more unlawful act by imposing an order of the competent authority to remove food storage facilities used by the leased victim, a compulsory performance order, etc. on the facility of the food storage.