The Defendants: (a) obtained information that the financial company belonging to the G Union would dissolve a trade union; and (b) requested an interview with the President of the KH to negotiate labor-management relations; (c) but refused, the Defendants decided to hold an interview with the I in person by finding the K Li T in the J at the time presumed to be the place where I resides.

On September 10, 2012, at around 14:00, the Defendants: (a) carried a car at the entrance of the said K Lart and carried a car at around 420 meters; and (b) carried a car into the front parking lot of the Lart building (L), and (c) carried the car into the Lart building (L), were requested to the effect that “I is currently absent the president. I are currently absent from the victim M and N, who is an employee in charge of Lart’s management. During the remodeling work, I do not engage in Lart business, and there is no reason for the general public’s access.”

Nevertheless, the Defendants shall not leave the victims for about 30 minutes jointly and for about the period of 30 minutes while the Defendants shall not leave from the back of the resort until they hold an interview with I.S.

The Gu's refusal to the Gu and the removal from the Liart was not made.

2. According to the evidence duly adopted and examined by this court, the Defendants’ refusal to comply with the request from N, etc. in charge of cooking management as stated in the facts charged and can be found to have been made to the fact that the Defendants sent to the above Rite until the police is called out.

However, the following circumstances revealed by the above evidence, i.e., the Defendants, in order to meet the I Chairperson, shall enter the car with the temporary border as stated in the facts charged, as the K LUT.