Defendant

A shall be punished by a fine of KRW 500,00, and by a fine of KRW 1,500,000, respectively.

The above fines are imposed by the Defendants.

Punishment of the crime

Defendant

B is the chairman of the "D apartment house" council, and the defendant A is the member of the credit group council of defendant B.

On June 19, 2012, the injured party E is a person who registered the transfer of ownership by winning a successful bid for D apartment 602, which is occupied by the defendants under the pretext of exercising the right of retention on June 19, 2012, and F is a representative director of the injured party.

The Defendants conspired and conspired from June 19, 2012 to May 29, 2015, the Defendants obstructed the Defendant’s real estate lease business by force by failing to comply with the eviction by Defendant A residing without permission from the victim’s company’s above D apartment 602, which was owned by the victim and thereby preventing the victim, who is the real estate rental business operator, from leasing the said D apartment 602.

Summary of Evidence

1. The Defendants’ respective legal statements

1. Any statement concerning the Defendants in part of each protocol of interrogation of the police officer

1. Statement made by the police with regard to F;

1. Decision on the disposition of the price of the gold paper which interferes with 2012Kahap 326 business; and

1. Judgment by the Seoul Central District Court 2012 Gohap 31852 confirmation of the absence of lien;

1. Application of the text of the Act and subordinate statutes to the Suwon District Court Decision 2013Na 20042

1. The Defendants: Articles 314 (1) and 30 of the Criminal Act; and Articles 314 (Selection of Penalty) of the said Act;

1. Defendants to be detained in the workhouse: Articles 70(1) and 69(2) of the Criminal Act;

1. Defendants of the provisional payment order: Article 334(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act [The Defendant and his defense counsel all objective facts acknowledged, but the registration of transfer of ownership in the name of the victim of the apartment building in the judgment below is a registration invalidation of the cause caused by an unlawful act of disposal. Thus, the Defendants’ act does not constitute a crime of interference with business.

The argument is asserted.

On the other hand, there is no legitimate right to possess the apartment complex in the judgment of the Defendants, which is recognized by the evidence of the judgment, the progress of the relevant civil and filing case, and the fact that there is no legitimate right to possess the apartment complex.