With respect to the judgment of the first instance, the Defendants are not guilty. The Defendants are not guilty.

A. The Defendants (the first instance court), 1) misunderstanding of facts and misunderstanding of legal principles are deemed to have been sittinged at a construction site for about 10 minutes in terms of the port on the issue of boundary surveying regarding the additional installation of provisional soundproof walls, and they cannot be deemed to have intentionally interfered with the business or to constitute “defluence” under the crime of interference with business, and the illegality as a legitimate act is excluded. In addition, the format of this case is managed as public waters by the Jeju Special Self-Governing Province (the Do Governor delegated with the authority) and even if the license was granted, it cannot be deemed to have acquired the management right. Since the naval headquarters without any authority cannot take measures to prohibit entry to the general public, the coast of this case does not constitute a place where entry is prohibited under the Punishment of Minor Offenses Act, even if it is found guilty of the Defendants of unfair sentencing.2) The sentencing of the first instance court (each fine 2,500,000 won) is too unfair.

B. Defendant A (the second instance court), 1) misunderstanding of facts and misunderstanding of legal principles, which were found by the second instance court as evidence of guilt, are illegally collected and provided in violation of the Personal Information Protection Act, and thus inadmissible evidence is inadmissible. The Defendant cannot be deemed to have committed an intentional interference with business or exercised “defence” in the crime of interference with business, since there was no conspiracy of interference with business with E, etc., and only participated in the company. The other party to the exercise of power is a driver of ready-mixed vehicle or its affiliated company, and thus, it cannot be deemed to have committed an interference with business against Samsung T&T and Tlim industry. Furthermore, the above act of the Defendant constitutes a legitimate act to block illegal naval base construction. 2) Even if the Defendant was found guilty of the Defendant, the second instance court’s imprisonment (two years of suspended sentence in June) is too unreasonable.