All appeals by the Defendants and the Prosecutor are dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. The Defendants asserted that the obstruction of business was caused by mistake of facts and misapprehension of legal principles) are merely an exercise of the right of retention by restoring the possession of the deprived party from the G, due to violence, deception, illegal on-site seizure and occupation, and do not occupy the instant site to interfere with G’s business.

Therefore, the Defendants’ act constitutes a lawful exercise of the right of retention or an act in trust as such, or an act that does not go against the social rules and does not constitute a crime due to an error on the premise of a justifiable act or an illegal act.

Nevertheless, the court below erred by misunderstanding of facts or misunderstanding of legal principles.

B) The Prosecutor’s indictment on this part of the facts charged constitutes abuse of the right to prosecute. Nevertheless, the lower court’s failure to dismiss the prosecution on this part on a different premise is erroneous in misapprehending the legal doctrine. 2) The sentence imposed by the lower court on each of the Defendants (Defendant A, B: fine of KRW 3 million, and Defendant C: fine of KRW 5 million) is too unreasonable.

B. The prosecutor (unfair form of punishment) ordered by the court below to the Defendants is too uneasible and unfair.

2. Judgment on the misunderstanding of facts and misapprehension of legal principles by the Defendants

A. The Defendants asserted the same purport in the lower court as to the assertion on obstruction of business.

Therefore, the lower court determined that the Defendants’ act of interference with the Defendants’ work cannot be deemed as an act that does not contravene social norms, solely on the grounds that the Defendants did not have a lien on grounds of the circumstances indicated in its holding, and even if the Defendants were to mislead the Defendants as to the existence of the lien, there is no justifiable reason in its judgment, and that it was difficult for the Defendants to receive the claim without preventing the occupancy.