All appeals are dismissed.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

1. The lower court, based on its reasoning, found Defendant A guilty from around March 20, 2013 to December 22:31, 2013 of the instant facts charged; ① interference with the relevant business by 11Ra from around March 20, 2013 to around 22:31; ② violation of the Punishment of Violences, etc. Act (joint property damage, etc.); ② person of November 23, 2012 among the facts charged in the instant case against the Defendants; (i) person of December 29, 2012; (ii) person of December 5, 2012; (iii) person of December 14, 2012; and person of December 21, 2012; and (iv) from around April 14, 2013 to around April 13: 14: 106, 2015 to around April 14, 2013 of the instant facts charged.

Meanwhile, on the grounds indicated in its reasoning, the lower court acquitted Defendant A of the charge on the following grounds: (i) the charge of interference with the business of 12Ra from March 20, 2013 to 22:25, and from 22:38 to 01:15 on the same day; (ii) the charge of the instant case against Defendant B and C, which is the primary charge on the act of himself on April 29, 2013 (as to Defendant C, from 13:56 to 13:59 from 14:03 to 14:06 from 14:00 to 14:06 on the charge of the instant case; and (iii) the charge of the instant case’s violation of the Labor Union Act, which is the ancillary charge, on the ground that there was no proof of the violation of the Labor Relations Adjustment Act.

2. As to the grounds of appeal by the Defendants, the Defendants erred by mistake in the part of the lower judgment convicting the Defendants, or by misapprehending the legal principles on duties of obstructing official duties, legitimate acts, and emergency evacuation, etc.

The argument is asserted.

Examining the relevant legal principles and evidence, the lower judgment did not err by misapprehending the legal doctrine as alleged in the grounds of appeal.

On the other hand, the defendant A.