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

On June 13, 2017, from around 08:10 to 09:58 on the same day, the Defendant obstructed the work of retaining wall construction by force of the victim, such as: (a) suspending construction to the victim and his/her father, and blocking his/her body body.

Summary of Evidence

1. The legal statement of witness D and E;

1. On-site photographs [the Defendant did not exercise his/her authority, and the victim did not perform his/her duty to report under the Building Act.]

The argument is asserted.

The term “power of force” of the crime of interference with business affairs means any form of force that may lead to the suppression and confusion of a person’s free will, regardless of whether it is tangible or intangible, and in reality, the victim’s free will is not restricted. However, in light of the offender’s status, the number of persons, and surrounding circumstances, etc., it should be sufficient to suppress the victim’s free will. As such, whether it constitutes such power ought to be objectively determined by taking into account all the circumstances, such as the time and place of the crime, motive and purpose of the crime, number of persons, capacity, mode of force, type of duty, type of duty, and the status of the victim (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2016Do10956, Oct. 27, 2016). According to the foregoing evidence, the Defendant recognized that the victim and his/her free will were in accordance with his/her human body parts at construction site over approximately two hours, and that the Defendant did not have a retaining wall construction and prevented his/her body from exercising the victim’s free will.

may be seen.

In addition, it is found that the damaged person did not fulfill his duty to report under the Building Act.

Even if the defendant's right is protected by legal procedure, such circumstance alone cannot be deemed legitimate to obstruct the defendant's business by force (see Supreme Court Decision 62Do17, Apr. 12, 1962, etc.). The defendant's assertion is without merit.