However, the execution of each of the above punishment against the Defendants shall be suspended for two years from the date this judgment became final and conclusive.

Of the facts charged in the instant case, it is not guilty of the violation of the Punishment of Violences, etc. Act (joint destruction and damage of property), general traffic obstruction, and violation of the Assembly and Demonstration Act against Defendant 1 and 2.

1. The co-principal of the defendant 1 and 2;

(a) Crimes of interference with business and violation of the Punishment of Violences, etc. Act;

Defendant 1 and 2, along with 60 members of the instant sub-committee, did not stop using the 60 vehicle blick bars, etc. from August 7, 2007 to August 21:30, 207, and held a meeting by holding the “click Zone Resolution” in front of the Dolung-gu ( Address omitted) Dol-gu (hereinafter “instant assembly”). The members of the instant sub-chapter indicated the “Flick Zone” in the “Flicket, etc., 70,000,000 won of the instant sub-chapter 60,000,000 won of the instant sub-chapter 70,000,000 won of the instant sub-chapter 70,000,000 won of the instant sub-chapter 70,000,000 won of the instant vehicle flick-gu, 70,000,000,000 won of the instant vehicle, and omitted the cargo number 7,07,0.

B. Points of general traffic obstruction

Defendant 1 and 2: (a) around 11:10 on August 6, 2007 to August 01:25, 2007, with 60 members of the instant branch, parked with 53 cargo vehicles (3.5 tons and 5 tons) closely at the police station from the two-lane road in front of the entrance of the center at the seat of the △○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○.

2. The crime of interference with the affairs of Defendant 3 and the violation of the Punishment of Violences, etc. Act.

Defendant 1, 2, and 60 members of the branch of this case participate in the assembly of this case from the distance prior to the meeting of the head of the Kugdong-gu Seoul Special Metropolitan City ( Address omitted) 1-A, which is set forth in the above 1-A, and thereby interfered with the goods delivery business of the victim non-indicted 2 corporation and damaged the victim non-indicted 7, etc. by force. Defendant 3 participated in the assembly of this case from August 9, 2007 to 21:30 on the same day by attending the assembly of this case and inducing other branch of this case to participate in the strike of the non-indicted 1, 2, and the above 60 branch of this case in collaboration with the non-indicted 1, 2, and the above 60 branch of this case from August 9, 2007 to 21:30 on the same day, and damaged the victim's property list of the non-indicted 2 corporation as the victim's property list.

3. The point of joint injury by the defendant 2 and 3

On August 21, 207: at least 40, 207, the above 4 Do Governor 1:21:30, the victim non-indicted 4 (the victim non-indicted 4 (the victim non-indicted 45 years old) who had been living together with his family members and returned to his house while the members of the branch of this case illegally parked the cargo on the road, obstructed the access vehicle, and resisting the strike, as mentioned above, she would be allowed to deduct the above participants of the above assembly so that they can pass. While conducting any demonstration, members of the branch of this case would be able to do so so so by giving the victim non-indicted 4, the victim non-indicted 4 and the victim non-indicted 4, the victim's face at the time of the victim non-indicted 2's treatment and injury to the non-indicted 4 (the victim non-indicted 4 and the victim's family members need to kill the victim's body, and the victim's body and the non-indicted 4, the victim's family head of this case.

1. Each statement made by Nonindicted 13 and 10 of the second trial records

1. The statement made by Nonindicted 4 in the third trial record

1. Each statement made by the witness 14 (including the statement in part of the cross-examination part of the defendant 3) and the non-indicted 6 in the fifth trial record

1. Each statement made by Nonindicted 15 and 16 of the seventh trial records;

1. The statement made by Nonindicted Party 17 in the 8th trial record

1. Each statement made by Nonindicted 12 and 1 of the 12th trial records;

1. Statement made by Nonindicted 18 of the 13th trial record

1. Part of the witness’s statement in the fourteenth trial record

1. Each statement made by Nonindicted 19 and 20 of the 15th trial records

1. Some statements made by the Defendants in the suspect interrogation protocol of each prosecutor about the Defendants

1. Part of the interrogation protocol of Nonindicted 5 by the prosecution concerning Nonindicted 5

1. Some statements made by the Defendants in each police interrogation protocol

1. The first police interrogation protocol against Nonindicted 16

1. Each police statement of Nonindicted 3, 13, 10, 14, 4, 12, 21, 22, and 23 (including copies)

1. A complaint filed by Nonindicted Incorporated Company 2

1. Each statement of Nonindicted 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 23, 30, 31, 31, and 18

1. Each of the accidents involving Nonindicted 32, 33, 34, and 23 (the waste oil poper around 02:00 to 03:35 on August 9, 2007)

1. Results of on-site inspection of this Court.

1. A report on an outdoor assembly;

1. A written confirmation of facts of damage (Evidence No. 132 through 134 pages of evidence);

1. Current status map and paper of strike (Evidence No. 347 through 359 pages of evidence);

1. A copy of each written diagnosis of injury against Nonindicted 4, 12, 13, 11, and 10

1. Written estimate (including copies) of each damaged vehicle;

1. Each investigation report (a report on the attachment of a certificate of a temporary substitute vehicle, a report on the attachment of a report on the processing of the 112 Report, a detailed statement of enforcement vehicles, etc., a report on attachment of a copy of video photography CD and photograph to an illegal assembly, a report on attachment of damage caused by a damaged vehicle and an estimated amount, a report on attachment to the organization of the borrower association, a report on attachment of an official document, such as a report on attachment of a certificate of a temporary substitute vehicle, a report on attachment of a certificate of collection of unlawful assembly and a photograph and a statement on attachment

1. Report on the situation of each information (the pages of evidence, 135 through 148, 165 through 203);

1. Evidence of each damaged vehicle (the number of pages of evidence Nos. 74 through 77, 97, 98, 100, 102 through 104);

1. Details of vehicle control and copies of documentary evidence (Evidence No. 217 through 251, 253 through 256 pages of evidentiary records);

A. Defendant 1

Articles 314(1), 30 (Interference with Duties by Force on the market, Selection of Imprisonment), 2(2) and (1)1 of the Punishment of Violences, etc. Act, 366, and 30 of the Criminal Act (In the case of damage to each common property at the market, choice of imprisonment), 185, and 30 of the Criminal Act (in the case of interference with general traffic at the market, choice of imprisonment), 180 of the Criminal Act (in the case of interference with general traffic and choice of imprisonment)

B. Defendant 2

Articles 314(1) and 30(1) of the Criminal Act, Article 30 (Interference with Business through Force on the Market, Selection of Imprisonment), Articles 2(2) and (1)1 of the Punishment of Violences, etc. Act, Articles 366 and 30 (Selection of Imprisonment, etc.) of the Criminal Act, Articles 185 and 30 (General Traffic Obstruction in the Market, Selection of Imprisonment), Articles 2(2) and 30 (1) of the Criminal Act, Articles 2(1)3 of the Punishment of Violences, etc. Act, Articles 257(1) and 30 (Appointment of Imprisonment, Selection of Imprisonment) of the Criminal Act

C. Defendant 3

Articles 314(1) and 30(2) of the Criminal Act, Article 30(a) (the obstruction of duties by force on the market, the choice of imprisonment), Article 2(2) and (1)1 of the Punishment of Violences, etc. Act, Article 366, and Article 30 (the occupation of causing damage to common property at the market, the choice of imprisonment), Article 2(2) and (1)3 of the Punishment of Violences, etc. Act, Article 2(2) and (1)3 of the Punishment of Violences, etc. Act, Articles 257(1) and 30 (the occupation of each joint injury on the market, the choice of imprisonment) of

1. Aggravation for concurrent crimes;

Article 37 (former part of Article 37, Article 38 (1) 2, and Article 50 of the Criminal Code [Aggravated Punishment of Violence, etc. against Victims Non-Indicted 4] Articles 38 (1) 2, and 50 of the Criminal Code [Aggravated Punishment of Crimes of Violation of the Punishment of Violences, etc. (Joint Bodily Injury) against Victims Non-Indicted 4 as provided for in the most severe punishment against Defendant 1, Defendant 2, and 3]

1. Suspension of execution;

Article 62 (1) of the Criminal Code (As agreed with the victims of injury and obstruction of business, the scale and scale of violence revealed in the course of the assembly of this case, and the degree and scale of violence revealed in the process of the assembly of this case, and the fact that Defendant 2 and 3 have living under detention for a considerable

* Number of days pending trial: Defendant 2 (176 days), Defendant 3 (176 days)

A. Summary of the assertion

The assembly of this case was decided and led voluntarily by the branch members of this case, and Defendant 1 and 2 were representatives of the branch and sub-branch associations of this case, which are superior organizations, and only caused fear and injury to the branch members, and were not expected at all about the result of obstruction of duties, damage of property, and traffic obstruction occurring in the process of the assembly of this case. Thus, it is unreasonable to hold the branch members liable for a crime as a co-principal in relation to each of the crimes of this part.

(b) Markets:

(4) On August 4, 207, the defendant 2 and the non-indicted 1's non-indicted 2's non-indicted 2's non-indicted 2's meeting of this case's non-indicted 2's non-indicted 2's non-indicted 1's meeting's non-indicted 2's non-indicted 1's non-indicted 2's non-indicted 2's non-indicted 1's non-indicted 2's non-indicted 2's non-indicted 1's non-indicted 2's non-indicted 2's non-indicted 1's non-indicted 2's non-indicted 2's non-indicted 1's non-indicted 2's non-indicted 2's non-indicted 1's non-indicted 2's non-indicted 2's non-indicted 1's non-indicted 2's non-indicted 1's non-indicted 2's non-indicted 1's non-indicted 1's non-indicted 2's non-indicted 1's non-indicted

2. The part concerning the crime of interference with Defendant 3's business and violation of the Punishment of Violences, etc. Act (joint destruction and damage)

A. Summary of the assertion

Defendant 3 is not a member of the instant branch, who is not a member of the instant branch, but a member of the branch. Since Defendant 3 merely went to the site of the instant meeting for the first time around August 9, 2007, when the assembly of this case was completed, around August 21, 2007, the branch members of this case were intended to be above, Defendant 3 cannot be a co-principal or co-principal with regard to the crime of obstruction of business and damage to property arising from the process of the instant meeting.

(b) Markets:

In light of the following circumstances, i.e., (i) around August 6, 2007, Defendant 3 was at the scene where members of the subdivision of this case prepared for the assembly of this case and started from the place of assembly of this case (the branch office of this case), and thus, it appears that he was aware of the purpose, contents, method of the assembly of this case (the second prosecutor's examination protocol against the defendant). (ii) On August 9, 2007, the defendant was given a text message from cargo solidarity to the effect that he would be jointly and severally liable with the members of this case to achieve the purpose of the assembly of this case. (The second prosecutor's examination protocol against the defendant) around 0: around 21:00, he she worn a cargo table and arrived at the scene of the assembly of this case (the second prosecutor's examination protocol against the defendant); (iii) from around 2007 to around 20: 3:00 on August 90, 2007, he was aware of the victim's testimony of this case (the assembly of this case).

3. The part concerning the crime of violation of the Punishment of Violences, etc. by Defendants 2 and 3

A. Summary of the assertion

Defendant 2 and Defendant 3 merely told the victim non-indicted 4 of the instant subdivision, and did not participate in the act of assault, and further, the victim non-indicted 4 and non-indicted 15, who led the victim non-indicted 4 to a tent at the initial stage of the dispute between the victim non-indicted 4 and the headquarters of this case, are not the defendant 3, and the above defendants are not guilty.

(b) Markets:

(1) First of all, Nonindicted 4’s non-indicted 5’s non-indicted 5’s statements were made at each investigation agency and court regarding Non-indicted 10, 14, 13, and 5’s non-indicted 4’s non-indicted 4’s non-indicted 5’s non-indicted 4’s use of the victim Nonindicted 4’s personal information and the victim’s non-indicted 5’s non-indicted 4’s non-indicted 5’s non-indicted 4’s use of the victim’s personal information, and the victim’s non-indicted 4’s non-indicted 5’s use of the victim’s personal information, and the victim’s non-indicted 4’s use of the victim’s personal information, as well as the victim’s non-indicted 5’s non-indicted 4’s non-indicted 4’s use of the victim’s personal information, and the victim’s non-indicted 4’s non-indicted 5’s use of the victim’s personal information.

(2) However, according to the evidence as seen earlier, Defendant 3 and 2 were present at the scene of the assault by the branch members against Nonindicted 4 and their families; the members of the unsatisfe with Nonindicted 15 and pushed away to the content of Nonindicted 4; the number of branch members thereafter committed a non-discriminatory assault against Nonindicted 4; Defendant 3 and 2 at the time when Nonindicted 4 was subjected to such a discriminatory assault against many branch members; Defendant 3 and 2 did not use the victim’s family members’ physical violence to prevent the above victims from being committed; thus, according to the above acknowledged facts, Defendant 3 and 2 did not accept the above Defendants’ physical assault against Nonindicted 4, as alleged by the above Defendants 4 and 4, even if they were unable to use the victim’s family members at the time of the above physical assault, and thus, Defendant 4 and 2 did not share part of the victim’s family members’ physical assault with their respective family members at the time of the above assembly.

A. Summary of the facts charged

Defendant 3, as a member of the instant branch, with the number of 60 members of the said branch, Defendant 1 and 2, and the number of Nonindicted Party 1 and the instant branch from August 7, 2007 to August 21, 200 to August 20, 207, held a meeting “Life Rights Resolution Meeting” and held a meeting. The members of the instant branch held the following phrases: “I pay oil subsidies to the Government, pay the assistant crew wages, guarantee of survival rights, improvement of working conditions, etc., 00,000 won, and take 70,000,000,000 won and 70,000,000 won and 70,000,000 won and 7,000,000 won and 7,000,000 won and 7,00,000 won and 7,00,000 won and 7,000,00 won and 7,000,00.

(b) Markets:

(1) Defendant 3, as at the early stage of the instant assembly, made a statement to the effect that Defendant 3 was the Defendant at the place of the instant assembly from around August 7, 2007, prior to the occurrence of the crime of destroying and damaging property as stated in the list of crimes in the separate sheet except for Nonindicted 3, Nonindicted 5’s legal statement. However, Nonindicted 5’s statement was defective in the credibility of the statement as seen in 3. B. (1) of the grounds for conviction, and Nonindicted 5 started to conduct an investigation under the custody of a sentry at the time of the instant assembly, and Nonindicted 5’s statement to the effect that Nonindicted 3 was the Defendant at the place of the instant assembly from around 0, August 7, 2007, according to the following facts: Nonindicted 200, Nonindicted 3 was unable to take part in the assembly of this case’s external vehicle log and each statement of measurement (the first day of the evidence record, Articles 596 through 598, 612 through 616).

(2) Therefore, among the facts charged against Defendant 3, the part on business obstruction conducted before August 21, 2007 and the part on the damage and destruction of each joint property other than Nonindicted 3 in the annexed list of crimes should be pronounced not guilty pursuant to the latter part of Article 325 of the Criminal Procedure Act. However, the part on the crime of interference with business in the above part is a single crime as continuous crime, and the part on the crime of interference with business in the above part is a single crime, and as seen earlier, the part on the crime of interference with business shall not be tried not separately in the order.

2. The defendant 3's general traffic obstruction

A. Summary of the facts charged

Defendant 3: (a) from around 11:10 on August 6, 2007 to around 01:25 on August 6, 2007, with the number of its members, Defendant 1, 2, and the branch of this case, and the number of its members, from around 11:10 on August 6, 2007 to around 01:25 on August 9, 2007, Defendant 3: (b) sealed 53 vehicles (3.5 tons, 5 tons) to prevent from being towed by the police on the two-lane road; and (c) as soon as possible, the vehicles are linked to the above vehicles using a river color tape to one another; (d) the police sent to the above branch of this case to move the vehicles to another place; (e) the members of the branch of this case failed to move the vehicles to a different place; and (e) the members of the branch of this case stopped the vehicle from the entrance of the △△ branch of this case to stop the vehicle and the Defendant 2 of this case.

(b) Markets:

As seen earlier, Defendant 3’s ground of innocence 1.B. As to the general traffic obstruction portion executed before August 9, 2007, which was first participated in the instant assembly, Defendant 3 cannot be held liable for a crime as a co-principal and co-principal. Accordingly, this part of the facts charged against Defendant 3 constitutes a case where there is no proof of a crime, and thus, Defendant 3 is acquitted pursuant to the latter part of Article 325 of the Criminal Procedure Act.

3. Violation of the Act on the Assembly and Demonstration by Defendant 1 and 2

A. Summary of the facts charged

Although no one may hold an outdoor demonstration before sunrise or after sunset, Defendant 1 and 2, along with 60 members of the branch of this case, participated in an outdoor demonstration on August 7, 2007 from around 23:0 to August 04:00, 2007; from around 22:00 on August 8, 2007 to around 04:0 on August 9, 2007; and Defendant 1 and Defendant 2, as the branch of this case, led Defendant 1 and Nonindicted 1 and 2 to hold the outdoor demonstration at night in collusion with the head of the branch of this case, who are the head of the branch of this case.

(b) Markets:

(1) On September 24, 2009, the Constitutional Court rendered a ruling of inconsistency with the Constitution to the effect that “an outdoor assembly” under Article 10 of the Assembly and Demonstration Act and Article 23 Subparag. 1 of the main sentence of Article 10 shall not coincide with the Constitution. The above provisions shall continue to apply to the foregoing provisions until the legislator amends the Constitution on June 30, 2010.” As long as the provisions of the above penal provisions have elapsed on June 30, 2010, prior to discussing the essence of the ruling of inconsistency with the Constitution, the part on the violation of the prohibition of holding an outdoor assembly at night become invalid.

(2) In addition, the prosecutor indicted Defendant 1 and 2 on the premise that the part during the instant assembly constituted a night demonstration on the basis that the part during the night corresponds to Defendant 1 and 2’s act of holding the instant assembly on the basis of Article 23 subparag. 1 and the main text of Article 10 of the Assembly and Demonstration Act.

(3) Therefore, as to whether the assembly of this case constitutes an outdoor demonstration other than an outdoor assembly, the term " demonstration" means an act that has led a group of people to a place where the general public can freely pass, such as roads, squares, parks, etc. for common purposes, or an act that affects the opinion of a group of unspecified people or is subject to pressure (Article 2 subparag. 2 of the Assembly and Demonstration Act), and the term "an outdoor assembly" means an assembly in a place where there is no ceiling or an erosion is not closed, separate from an assembly, to the purport of each provision of Article 6(1)6 of the Assembly and Demonstration Act, which provides that the method of demonstration, including a course and a map, should be stated in relation to the demonstration, and the meaning of each provision of Article 6(1)6 of the Assembly and Demonstration Act, which provides that the assembly of this case shall be construed as "an assembly limited place".

(4) However, in light of the following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence mentioned above, the assembly of this case was conducted in the vicinity of the Suwon-si Suwon-si ( Address omitted), and the procedure for reporting the part of the meeting of this case was conducted at the night time other than the day on which the assembly of this case was charged. However, the assembly of this case continued to be conducted at night, but it was conducted without a place to move at night, and the assembly of this case was conducted at night by using several representative cargo vehicles during the process of the assembly of this case to the head office of Suwon-si and Seoul △△△△, Seoul, but it was conducted during the day-time hours (each information situation report-Evidence No. 186-198- of each information record). However, the part during the assembly of this case conducted at night cannot be deemed to constitute a demonstration, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it otherwise.

(5) If so, this part of the facts charged against Defendant 1 and 2 constitutes a case where there is no proof of a crime, and thus, it is not guilty under the latter part of Article 325 of the Criminal Procedure Act.

[Attachment Form 5]

Judges Lee Jae-py