A. Defendants 1) misunderstanding of facts or misunderstanding of legal principles as to the obstruction of worships: Defendant A was the representative director who can supervise the worship at the F church meeting, and Defendant A went to the church to deliver the worship at the F church meeting of this case. The Defendants’ act of removing it does not constitute damage to property, since it was illegal to attach a posters with the contents prohibiting the entry of the Defendant’s church, who is duly entrusted with the right to the chairman of the church, to deliver the worships. The Defendants’ act of removing it does not constitute damage to property. The Defendants’ act was obstructed when they attempted to mislead the force for the delivery of worships, and the Defendants did not interfere with the worship of G pastors and the members. Nevertheless, the lower court found the Defendants guilty of this part of the facts charged against the Defendants.

Nevertheless, the lower court found the Defendant guilty of this part of the facts charged and erred by misapprehending the legal doctrine.

(The grounds of appeal on this part of the Defendant are somewhat unclear, but the entry in the grounds of appeal on September 20, 2019 is examined as above).

The sentence of unfair sentencing (Defendant A: a fine of 2 million won, Defendant B: a fine of 1 million won) of the lower court is too heavy.

2. Determination

A. Determination 1 on the obstruction of worship against the Defendants is that the crime of interference with worship under Article 158 of the Criminal Act is protected by its legal interest. Thus, even in a case where a person who was discharged from the position of a pastor or the president of a church by a superior organization gives a worship contrary to the higher organization’s decision, barring any other special circumstances, his transfer of worship and his worship are worth being protected under the Criminal Act, and thus, the crime of interference with worship is established in a case where he committed an act that interferes with such transfer of worship and the peace in the performance of worship (see Supreme Court Decision 201Da2548, Feb. 13, 2001).