A. Defendants (misunderstanding of facts and misapprehension of legal principles) ① Defendants did not mislead or interfere with their duties to the extent that they constitute interference with their duties, nor did they have any intention to interfere with their duties.

② Furthermore, the Defendants’ act constitutes a legitimate exercise of rights and thus constitutes a justifiable act, and thus, constitutes a lawful act, the lower court found the Defendants guilty of this part of the charges.

Therefore, the court below erred by misunderstanding the facts and misunderstanding the legal principles.

B. The prosecutor (misunderstanding of facts and misapprehension of the legal principles) did not sufficiently examine the facts related to the injury, thereby misunderstanding the basic facts about the injury or misunderstanding the legal principles on the probative value of the medical certificate of injury, thereby pronounced not guilty of this part of the facts charged. The judgment of the court below is erroneous in the misapprehension of facts

2. Determination

A. As to the Defendants’ assertion, this part of the facts charged (the point of interference with the business in the judgment of the court), between July 15, 2015 and July 15, 16:56, and 16:32, the Defendants: (a) in the GG office operated by the victim D, the victim D, located in the Busan Shipping-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government Franchisa, and (b) in the GG office operated by the victim D; (c) in regard to the fact that the Defendants received a final and conclusive judgment to dismiss the claim in the said lawsuit filed by the Defendants, three employees, other than the victim, were unable to perform the business of the company.

Accordingly, the Defendants jointly interfered with the work of the victims by force.

2) The lower court found this part of the facts charged in accordance with the evidence adopted by the lower court, and found the Defendants guilty on the grounds that the Defendants’ act of interference with the Defendants’ duties cannot be deemed as a justifiable act that did not violate social rules, in light of the motive and circumstance of the victim’s visit to the office, the details and result of the Defendants’ act