The judgment of the court below is reversed.

Defendants are not guilty.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. In the instant case, the lower court did not have the explicit or presumed intent of the manager who prohibited the Defendants from entering the Defendants at the time of the instant case. The Defendants did not have the intent of intrusion, and there was no conspiracy for intrusion.

Nevertheless, the court below found the Defendants guilty of all the charges of this case. The court below erred by misunderstanding the facts or misunderstanding the legal principles.

B. The lower court’s punishment against the illegal Defendants (a fine of one million won) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. The following facts are charged by the prosecutor of the judgment ex officio (Defendant A, B, C, D, E, F, and G) against Defendant A, B, C, D, E, F, and G in the trial of the Party:

나. ⑴ 의 ㈎ 항과 같이 변경하는 내용의 공소장변경허가신청을 하였고, 이 법원이 이를 허가함으로써 심판대상이 변경되었으므로, 원심판결 중 위 피고인들에 대한 부분은 더는 유지할 수 없게 되었다.

Even if there are such reasons for ex officio reversal, the above Defendants’ assertion of misunderstanding of facts and misapprehension of legal principles is still subject to the judgment of this court within the scope of the modified facts charged, and it will be examined below.

나. 피고인들의 사실 오인 및 법리 오해 주장에 관한 판단 ⑴ 공소사실의 요지 ㈎ 피고인 A, B, C, D, E, F, G 피고인들은 전국 금속노동조합 경기 지부 M 지회 조합원들 로서 피해자 O이 관리하는 주식회사 P 사업장에서 위 회사 노동조합인 전국 금속노동조합 경기 지부 P 지회가 파업을 하고 있다는 사실을 알고 파업 지원을 위해 위 사업장에 침입하기로 공모하였다.

The Defendants came to the workplace of the P Co., Ltd. located in Sin from August 24, 2016 to August 19:48, 2016, the Defendants prohibited outside persons from entering and leaving the said company’s goods without permission and preventing interference with the business.