The part of the defendant D against the defendant is reversed.

Defendant

D. A person shall be punished by imprisonment for not more than four months.

, however, the defendant.

A. The Defendants’ assertion of misunderstanding of facts or misapprehension of legal principles (1) and the O Corporation located in N in Seopo-si at the time of the instant case’s obstruction of business as of September 30, 2011 (hereinafter “instant construction”).

b) Taking into account the circumstances that police forces, including electric warning, were assigned to the front road of the field entrance, the Defendant’s attempt to block the front of the vehicle and the act of punishing the expenses, ditches, and other disputes cannot be deemed to constitute force of the crime of interference with business. (B) On October 6, 2011, the Defendant did not recognize that he was performing official duties, as military personnel (public officials) at the time of the obstruction of performance of official duties, as he was in uniform, was performing official duties, and it was difficult to view that the Defendant was committing the crime of obstruction of performance of official duties, because the Defendant was in the same uniform.

C) Considering the situation where a large number of police forces are placed at the time a defendant temporarily stoppinged on the roof of AK ready-mixed Vehicle, the defendant's act does not constitute force on the crime of interference with business, and it cannot be deemed that the defendant's act interferes with the business of AB. (2) Violation of the Punishment Act on Punishment of Minor Offenses (other than defendant D) on October 6, 201, and violation of the Punishment of Minor Offenses Act and violation of C, E, F, G, I, J, J, K, L's violation of the Punishment of Minor Offenses Act on October 4, 2011, the "area, facility or place where access is prohibited" under Article 1 subparag. 49 of the Punishment of Minor Offenses Act is generally prohibited, and the case constitutes a violation of the Punishment of Minor Offenses Act on the ground that the prosecutor's act constitutes a violation of the Punishment of Minor Offenses Act on the ground that the case constitutes a violation of Article 5(3) of the Punishment of Minor Offenses Act.