The judgment below

Defendant A, B, D, E, F, G, H, K, L, M, N, andO shall be reversed.

Defendant

A. Imprisonment.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Defendant A, B, D, E, F, G, H, K, L, M, F, N, and H (O1) misunderstanding of facts and misapprehension of legal principles) Defendant A, B, D, E, F, G, and H’s violation of the duties against the victim S (related to the crime of the lower judgment’s crime No. 2-A). The lower court held that the said Defendants filed a complaint against a strike, assembly, and violation of the Industrial Safety and Health Act at the construction site of each construction company that leased the victim S from the victim, or an assembly or accusation.

It was recognized that the act of speaking interfered with the victim S's work by exercising "power" as to the act of speaking.

However, the above Defendants’ act does not constitute a crime of interference with business on the grounds as set forth below.

Therefore, the lower court erred by misapprehending the legal doctrine regarding the establishment of a crime of interference with business, or by misapprehending the facts, thereby constituting a crime of interference with business by the said Defendants.

In principle, “power of force” of the crime of interference with business affairs shall be exercised to the victim, and when exercised to a third party, the crime of interference with business affairs is established in relation to the victim only when there are special circumstances that can be the same as the exercise of the victim’s power.

However, the facts charged as to the obstruction of the instant business are that the said Defendants interfered with the business of the victim S by exercising force on the construction company’s related parties, not the victim S, who leased the stude from the Plaintiff, and there is no special circumstance to suggest that the exercise of power against the said construction company’s related parties is identical with the exercise of power against the victim S.

The above Defendants’ act of strike, assembly, or accusation of violation of the Industrial Safety and Health Act does not constitute “power” that constitutes a crime of interference with business, since it was not committed with the purpose of obstructing the business of the victim S.

A victim S each due to the above Defendants’ act.