2. The crime of this case committed by the Defendants, which is a trade union, was committed in favor of the victim company, by exercising power to prevent the Defendants from driving ahead of the vehicle in front of the victim company, and thereby obstructing the business of the victim company. The nature of the crime is not less than that of the crime, and the fact that the damage to the victim company was not recovered is disadvantageous to the Defendants.

However, all the Defendants recognize and oppose a crime, and do not focus on the exercise of the force mobilized to commit the crime in this case, and the damage therefrom is relatively minor.

In full view of the circumstances favorable to the Defendants, including the fact that Defendant A was sentenced to a fine once for the crime of attack in 2004, and Defendant B was an initial offender who had no record of criminal punishment prior to the instant case, and other factors of sentencing as shown in the instant pleadings, including the Defendants’ age, sex, family environment, motive and circumstance of the crime, means and consequence of the crime, and the circumstances before and after the crime, etc., it is not recognized that the lower court’s sentence against the Defendants is too unjustifiable and unfair.

3. In conclusion, since the prosecutor's appeal against the Defendants is without merit, all of the appeals are dismissed under Article 364 (4) of the Criminal Procedure Act. It is so decided as per Disposition.