Defendant shall be punished by a fine of KRW 1,000,000.

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

Punishment of the crime

1. On January 25, 2017, the Defendant obstructed the operation of the victim’s warehouse by force by force, such as making it difficult for the victim to perform his/her work on and off agricultural products, by failing to remove one container from the “E” storage of the victim’s “E” at low temperature of agricultural products in Hayeong-gun C, and thereby obstructing the operation of the victim’s warehouse by force.

2. On January 25, 2017, at around 11:21, the Defendant damaged the property by stating “F during the possession of the lien” as red folders, at the location described in paragraph (1) at around 11:1, the above warehouse entrance owned by the victim.

Summary of Evidence

1. A protocol concerning the examination of the police officers of the accused;

1. Statement made by the police against D;

1. A letter of promise to waive the right of retention;

1. Application of the Acts and subordinate statutes to the complaint;

1. Relevant Article 314 (1) of the Criminal Act and Article 314 (1) of the Criminal Act (the point of interference with business and the selection of fines) concerning facts constituting an offense, and Article 366 of the Criminal Act (the point of destroying property and the selection of fines);

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. The Defendant’s assertion on the Defendant’s assertion under Article 334(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act is the lien holder, and thus, the Defendant did not interfere with the victim’s business or damage property. Thus, according to each of the above evidence, the Defendant, prior to the instant case, can be recognized as having renounced the right of retention by preparing “written promise to waive the right of retention” and thus, the Defendant’s assertion is not the lien holder, but the Defendant’s assertion is rejected.