Defendant

A A shall be punished by a fine of KRW 3 million, Defendant W, and AG, respectively, by a fine of KRW 700,000.

The Defendants respectively.

Punishment of the crime

Defendant

A is the head of the G Commercial Building Management Body in Jung-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government, and Defendant W is the head of the above commercial building management body, and Defendant AG is the representative of the above commercial building management body.

Defendant

At around 14:00 on December 29, 201, W and Defendant AG notified the victim that the victim violated the regulations on the operation of the said shopping mall at the 103 and 104 floor operated by the victim AH (n, 32 years of age) on the second floor of the said G shopping mall building, and notified the victim that the victim violated the regulations on the operation of the said shopping mall, etc., the victim was in violation of the said regulations, and then the victim was pushed the victim of the said regulations, and then the victim was pushed the victim under the direction of the Defendant A, and the measure was taken to close the place of business, such as placing the surrounding area of the said store as tape

As a result, the Defendants conspired to interfere with the victim's clothes store business by force.

Summary of Evidence

1. Defendants’ partial statement

1. AH's legal statement;

1. Some of the prosecutor's interrogation protocol against the Defendants

1. Statement by the prosecution against AH;

1. Statement made to AH by the police;

1. Proof points and written consent for items, written confirmation, written confirmation, content certification (1), and content certification (2);

1. G commercial operation rules;

1. Application of the Acts and subordinate statutes of the G Commercial Building Management Rules;

1. Relevant Articles 314(1) and 314(1) and 30 of the Criminal Act and the Defendants’ choice of punishment on criminal facts

1. Defendants to be detained in the workhouse: The grounds for determination and sentencing of the Defendants’ assertion on Articles 70 and 69(2) of the former Criminal Act (Amended by Act No. 12575, May 14, 2014)

1. The Defendants asserted that it constitutes a legitimate act, merely because the sanctions prescribed in the above rules are duly executed against the victims who violated the operating rules of the commercial building of this case.

Whether a certain act is justified as an act that does not violate the social norms, and the illegality is excluded, should be determined individually by considering the purpose and rational aspects under specific circumstances, and this should be determined individually.