A. Although the Defendants’ misunderstanding of facts and misapprehension of the legal doctrine were the fact that the Defendants obstructed the front of the J, which is a sacrinant pastor, in the instant day-to-day border, it was aimed at preventing the public notice of the illegal general meeting of shareholders that was scheduled to be made on the same day, such act constitutes a justifiable act.

B. The sentence of the lower court’s unfair sentencing is unfair because it is too unreasonable to impose each punishment (a fine of KRW 500,000) on the Defendants.

2. Determination

A. In addition to the circumstances revealed by the lower court in its judgment as to the assertion of misunderstanding of facts and misapprehension of the legal doctrine, the crime of interference with worship as stipulated in Article 158 of the Criminal Act is deemed to legally protect the peace and sentiment of the religious life of the public (see Supreme Court Decision 2007Do5296, Feb. 1, 2008). According to the evidence duly adopted and examined by the lower court and the trial court, a number of believers, other than the believers who lawfully prevented the entry of the GJ in front of the distribution of the same day, are likely to have been waiting in the distribution of the same case for the purpose of worship, and their worship is the first priority to be protected within the church, which is the religious place.

In light of the fact that the establishment of a crime of interference with worship does not require the purpose or intent of interference other than the intention, and the relevant intention is sufficient if the intentional negligence is sufficient, the judgment of the court below that found the Defendants guilty of the facts charged in this case is just and acceptable, and the Defendants’ assertion to the effect that there is an error of law by misunderstanding the facts and misunderstanding the legal principles is without merit.

B. Although the Defendants did not have the same criminal record as to the unfair determination of the sentencing, there was a violation of the peace of the religious life of many believers due to the Defendants’ act, and the means of such act also used the ways to occupy stairs leading to the distribution of tugboats. The nature of the crime is the same.