The Defendants, who are members of the above union, attempted to hold an extraordinary meeting to dismiss the executive officers of the above union in accordance with the proposal of at least 1/10 of the members of the union and the decision of the court, and attempted to interfere with the normal holding of the extraordinary meeting by preventing the members from attending the said extraordinary meeting.

On February 12, 2014, at around 18:00, Defendant A, C, E, and D had a meeting place of the above special meeting, and around 102, Defendant A, E, and D, before the Seocho-gu Seoul Seocho-gu Seoul Seocho-gu Seoul Seocho-gu, where there was a meeting place for the above general meeting place, asked the entrance of the above meeting place and the number of houses to ensure that those who wish to enter the place and make them not enter the meeting place; Defendant B: (a) prevented those who want to enter the above meeting place from entering the meeting place from entering the meeting place; and (b) interfered with the acts of other Defendants.

As a result, the Defendants conspired with and by force interfered with the general meeting of the victim.

2. In a criminal trial, the burden of proving the facts constituting an offense prosecuted is to be borne by the public prosecutor, and the conviction should be based on strict evidence of probative value, which makes the judge feel true to the extent that there is no reasonable doubt. Therefore, if there is no such evidence, there is a suspicion of guilt against the defendant, even if there is no such evidence.

Even if there is no choice but to judge the interests of the defendant.

In light of each legal statement of K, K, M, N, andO, each police statement of K and M, N, andO written confirmation of each fact-finding statement of K and M, N, and K’s written accusation, it is difficult for the aforementioned witnesses to believe the contents or entries of each statement in K’s written accusation.