All appeals filed by B, C, E, F, and G and those filed by the prosecutor against the Defendants are dismissed.

A. Defendant B, C, A, E, F, and G1 are guilty of facts or is erroneous in the legal principles). misunderstanding the legal principles on obstruction of one’s business (Defendant B, and C’s attempt to resume the operation while violating the existing labor-management agreement. Thus, the Defendants’ act does not constitute the element of obstruction of business, and even if so, it does not correspond to the element of obstruction of business.

Even if the Defendants’ act is a legitimate act that does not constitute a legitimate defense or a legitimate act that does not constitute a legitimate act in light of social norms due to resistance against the unfair disposal of the victim company.

B) The misunderstanding of the legal principles as to the obstruction of business operations 4 in the crime (defendant B, A, E, F, and G) facts constituting an accident on the standard book for the resumption of work, but the victim company failed to comply with the procedures set forth in the standard form for the resumption of work requested in the case of safety accidents and resisted the representatives of the labor union including the Defendants, and on-site members to force Rain to operate Rain, without complying with the request of the victim company in the case of safety accidents, and therefore, they cannot be deemed as an accident subject to protection of interference with business, and even if so, it is not so.

Even if there is no illegality of the Defendants' acts as legitimate defense or legitimate acts.

C) The lower court did not err by misapprehending the legal doctrine as to aiding and abetting the attempted fraud of the crime 6 paragraph (6) or by soliciting Defendant A to obtain a false diagnosis certificate from H, and provided the same to assist the H’s industrial accident application. As such, there was no intention to defraudation of the compensation for medical care to be received by H as well as aiding and abetting the H’s fraud crime.

D) misunderstanding the legal principles on interference with the business of the 7th of the facts constituting an offense (defendant G, I, and J) (Defendant G, I, and J) demanded correction in violation of the input ratio stipulated in the existing agreement, and prevented Rain operation, and the victim company re-dong without taking follow-up measures in violation of the existing agreement.