A. Defendants 1) When a scopic action interferes with the dual and dredging work, the scopic work and dredging work is conducted in violation of the laws and regulations related to environmental impact assessment, and there is no value to be protected under the Criminal Act.

Defendant

On January 26, 2012, and January 27, 2012, A, F, G, and B: (a) an act of noise-friendly at close to the site where clamping of carbs is performed; or (b) Defendant F’s act of listed cick on June 30, 2012 cannot be deemed to constitute “defensive force” of the crime of interference with business.

Defendants’ act is intended to resist illegal construction, and constitutes self-defense, emergency evacuation, or legitimate act.

B) On March 23, 2013, the instant container ordered by the Gangnam Village Association to interfere with the business of the victim U and the vehicle damage. As such, the ownership of the instant container was transferred to the Gangnam Village Association, the movement of the container without the consent of the Gangnam Village Association cannot be deemed to be the U.S.’s duties. Moreover, even if the instant container was illegal facilities, the police’s request for removal of the instant container does not constitute an unlawful performance of official duties without due process of administrative vicarious execution, and the act of U U who intended to move the container at the request is not a legitimate duty. Thus, Defendant C’s interference with the business on June 8, 2012, with the operation of the Defendant’s obstruction on the part of June 23, 2012 does not constitute the crime of interference with business. Since the instant truck was possible to enter another vehicle on the front road of the project team, the Defendants’ interference with the Defendant’s duties cannot be deemed to have been caused by the violation of the Punishment Act of the Minor Offenses Act.

In particular,