The Defendants are not guilty. The summary of each judgment against the Defendants is publicly announced.

A. Defendant B merely told the victims that he was "wraped," and did not have any other abusive language, and Defendant A never intended to do so at all.

B. The lower court did not err by misapprehending the legal doctrine regarding F and E’s duties, which are the police officers, as objects of the crime of interference with business, but by doing so, it cannot be said that the act of the victimized person’s abusive or seated alone constitutes a threat of force in the crime of interference with

2. The summary of the facts charged in the instant case is the relation that the Defendants came to know at the meetings of the victims of criminal justice for about one year prior to the instant one year, and Defendant B is the representative of Defendant A’s genuine case.

Defendants are in the same year by the Defendants around 10:00 on July 29, 2008.

3. The first floor public service center of the Chungcheongnam-nam Provincial Police Agency was sought to submit a written application for coal death, on the ground that a person in charge of D submitted a written application and a written application for coal to the Cheongnam Provincial Police Agency Hearing Inspector Office was completed without investigation.

The Defendants explained the procedure of the instant case and the grounds for the closure of internal investigation by police officers E belonging to the said D Team and police officers of the first section of the investigation, but requested the Commissioner of the Local Police Agency to interview the Defendants on the grounds that the Defendants did not properly investigate the contents submitted by E. The said police officers: (a) made a threat as to what kind of harm would be inflicted on the body while taking a bath to “Isar. Hasar Hasar flae” and “Isar fladar fladar fladar fladar fladar fladar”; (b) made a threat, “Isar fladar fladar flae,” and “Isar fla fladar f,” and fladar flae fladar f, etc. by means of

3. On July 29, 2008, the prosecutor of the judgment of the court below brought a public prosecution against the Defendants on the grounds that the Defendants interfered with the duties of police officers E belonging to the D Team and police officers in charge of investigation E and police officers in charge of investigation. The court below found the Defendants guilty of all the facts charged and found them guilty.