However, it is against the Defendants for two years from the date the judgment became final and conclusive.

On November 10, 2012, the opposing body, such as the D Association, opposed to the construction of Defendant A C, installed two tents on the road located in Seopo-si E in Seopo-si in order to interfere with the progress of construction works.

On November 13, 2012, Dog-spoon viewed D as the primary restoration system (the road law is applied, the road law is removed on November 17, 2012), the second restoration system on March 20, 2013 (the road law is applied, the removal on April 5, 2013), and the third restoration system on April 9, 2013 (the road law is applied, and the removal on April 14, 2013).

D 1-3 The Association received a direction for restoration from the original restoration, and moved the said 2000 am to the river site located in F, and accordingly, the said 200 am was installed across the road site in E and the river site located in F.

Then, on April 29, 2013, the 4th National River Act applied the application of the Act to the Act on the Law of the State as a river, and the 4th National Treasury was to restore to the original state (the removal made on May 2, 2013). On May 8, 2013, a warrant of administrative vicarious execution was issued. D Association did not voluntarily remove the said 2 out of May 10, 2013, the date of administrative vicarious execution, until 08:00.

Therefore, on May 10, 2013, 100 public officials, such as Seogpo View G, started an administrative vicarious execution that removes two tents installed without permission on the road and river site around 08:00, with the police support.

At that time, the president of the D Center collected opposite activities by sounding sirens from the D Center, and the opposite activities of the D Center, such as I, J, K, etc., interfered with the course of the public officials in front of the said 2000ss and obstructed the course of the public officials, and L et al. interfered with the public officials G, M, N,O, and P taking a bath, and pushed them out of the tent. The Defendant threatened with H and Q, together with H and Q, that it would interfere with the removal of the said tent by linking the strings to the said tent, and the opposing activities, such as B, interfered with the public officials entering the said tent, and prevented the removal of 30 minutes of the 30s or more.

In this respect.