A. The Defendant did not have conspired with Co-Defendant B, C, and D, and Co-Defendant did not appear at the site when entering the office of the instant management office, and later, Co-Defendant E and C did not go to the management office office to communicate with the head of the management office and to cope with the situation, and did not interfere with his duties by force even after the office.

B. Even if the defendant's act constitutes the crime of interference with business, the illegality of the defendant's act constitutes a justifiable act under Article 20 of the Criminal Act.

2. Determination

A. 1) In full view of the following circumstances acknowledged by the lower court and the evidence duly adopted and duly examined by the first instance court and the first instance court, even if the Defendant did not have any prior intent to commit the instant crime, it does not necessarily need to be made in advance, and even if there was no prior intention, at the place of each co-defendant, there is no intention to commit the instant crime, and even if there was no prior intention to commit the crime, the number of co-defendants cannot be exempted from the responsibility of each co-principal (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 87Do1240, Oct. 13, 1987).

① Co-defendants of the Defendant and the lower court are co-defendants of Jtel in Seongbuk-gu, Sungnam-si, who are members of the Emergency Countermeasure Committee that Defendant A is the Chairperson. In the process of selecting a new controlled entity due to the expiration of the contract term of K, which is the previous controlled entity of the relevant officetel.