The court below erred by misapprehending the facts or by misapprehending the legal principles, thereby failing to establish a crime of non-compliance with eviction, even though it cannot be deemed that the infringement legal interests and legal interests are balanced, and the supplementary nature and urgency of the act cannot be recognized.

2. Determination

A. On January 13, 2019, the summary of the facts charged, the Defendants: (a) expressed unfair treatment contrary to the D pastors, who are the members of the C church, unfairly dispatched and dispatched the Defendants; and (b) filed a lawsuit claiming a provisional disposition prohibiting the Defendants’ access to the church; and (c) neglected the notification of the decision to dismiss the application for provisional disposition prohibiting access by using the diskettes from the C church.

1) On January 13, 2019, at around 11:23:25, the Defendants jointly interfered with the worship of D pastors who were engaged in towing at the Clus Plus Plus Pak Si located in E on January 13, 2019. However, the Defendants cited “the rejection of an application for provisional measures against entry and exit” in their preparation in advance to the Plus Plus Pa and Plus Plus located in E and Plus Plus Plus Plus Plus Plus Plus Plus Plus Plus Plus Plus Plus, and dismissed the trial in the manner of “an application for temporary measures against entry and exit by the court” and “an application for temporary measures against entry and exit by the court”, and “an application for temporary measures against entry and exit by the members of the Plus Plus Plus Assembly during the year 2010 Plus Plus Plus Plus Plus Plus P.