A. The Defendants (Deficial Error) (1) The Joint Council of this case was held unlawfully due to procedural and content defects, and thus, the voting business of the Joint Council of this case does not constitute “business” subject to the protection of the crime of interference with business under the Criminal Act.

(2) The Defendants did not interfere with the voting business of the victim as stated in the facts charged in the instant case, and Defendant B and D’s act did not interfere with the voting business since it occurred after the voting was completed.

(3) Furthermore, the Defendants merely put a legitimate claim on the fact that the voting procedure does not lawfully run, and do not constitute “defensive power,” and the Defendants’ act did not interfere with the victim’s voting business.

(4) Therefore, although each of the facts charged in this case against the Defendants is not guilty, the court below found the Defendants guilty, and there is an error of law by misunderstanding the facts and affecting the conclusion of the judgment.

B. The prosecutor (unfair punishment) sentenced by the lower court to the Defendants is deemed to be too uneasy and unfair.

2. Determination:

A. (1) Determination as to the Defendants’ assertion (1) Whether the instant joint meeting voting business constitutes “business” subject to the protection of the Criminal Act, or “business” subject to the protection of the crime of interference with business under the relevant legal doctrine is an occupation or continuous work, or a business which is worth protecting from infringement by another person’s unlawful act, and as such, it does not necessarily need to be lawful or valid. Thus, whether the business is legally worthy of legal protection is determined depending on whether the business is actually peacefully and becomes a foundation for social activities, and is substantial or procedural in the process of commencing or performing the business.