A. Defendant 1) misunderstanding of facts or misunderstanding of legal principles, Defendant 1’s business obstruction as of November 17, 2010 - misunderstanding of facts did not take the production lines’ emergency stop location, and therefore, Defendant 1 did not stop the production lines’ operation.

B) The act of interfering with the business of November 17, 2010 and December 9, 2010 - misapprehending the legal principles - (1) the act of having a substitute worker put an employee into the labor union and Labor Relations Adjustment Act (hereinafter “Labor Relations Adjustment Act”).

(1) Article 43(1) of the Protection of Dispatched Workers Act (hereinafter “Dispatched Act”)

(2) The Defendant’s act in violation of Article 16(1) of the Criminal Act does not constitute a crime of interference with business, and thus does not constitute a crime of interference with business. (2) The Defendant’s act in violation of Article 16(1) ought to be deemed to be in the position of D workers, and the instant industrial action was conducted through lawful procedures, such as 10 days after the date on which the application for mediation of labor disputes was submitted to the National Labor Relations Commission and going through union members voting. The primary purpose of the instant industrial action was to maintain and improve the working conditions by wage, wage, and employment stability, and at the time, the Defendant and E Chungcheong Branch D (hereinafter “Private Party D”).

(C) In the event of the misunderstanding of the legal principles, the members of the association, while staying in the place of work and waiting in the corridor, did not take full exclusive use of productionra, and when exercising considerable power to prevent illegal alternative employment activities on the D side, illegality should be avoided as a justifiable act under Article 20 of the Criminal Act. (c) Violation of the Punishment of Violences, etc. Act (joint injury) - In the event of the instant case, the managers and guards of D side at the time of the instant case, first protested against the high level of violence that they exercised against the Defendant and its members.