Recognizing that the Defendants did not comply with the demands of M and N for about about 30 minutes, the Defendants were relatively friendly for about 20 minutes until the police was dispatched, while the Defendants found in the instant resort and found out the motive and the ownership relationship in the instant resort.

It appears that there was a need to verify whether the agency has authority or not, and the necessity to leave the building.

The court held that the defendants' act is not illegal because it is reasonable to the extent permitted by social norms on the grounds that it is difficult to evaluate the defendants as being not in compliance with the Gu's refusal.

In light of the above, the Defendants stated that the Defendants entered the place of a set-out site, despite the employees’ non-entry of the security service company, even though they prevented them from entering the place of a set-out site (see, e.g., 186 pages, 192 pages). In light of the above, the Defendants were required to leave the place of a set-up site thereafter.

It is difficult to deem that there is social reasonableness in failure to comply with the Gu, and ③ The place of the crime of this case is immediately front of the Lgate, thereby evaluating differently from the act of refusal to leave the building.

Even in light of the apparent fact that the refusal to withdraw constitutes the establishment, the lower court erred by misapprehending the legal doctrine, or by misapprehending the legal doctrine, acquitted the facts charged of this case.

2. Determination

A. The summary of the facts charged in this case is as follows: (a) the head of the G Trade Union’s chapter; (b) the head of the office office of the G Trade Union; (c) the head of the external cooperation bureau of the G Trade Union; (d) Defendant E; (e) the head of the office in charge of securities of the G Trade Union; and (e) Defendant D

Defendants.