The Defendants’ appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

가. 사실오인 및 법리오해 1) 각 업무방해의 점과 관련하여, ① 피고인들은 피해자 K에게 항의를 하였을 뿐 그에게 폭력을 행사한 사실이 없고, ② 피해자 K는 무릎 수술로 실제로 청소를 할 수 있는 상태가 아니었고, M이 복수노조인 파견직 노동조합의 신규 채용 추천권을 주장해서 피고인 측을 배제하고 다른 사람을 채용하기 위하여 피해자가 청소를 하는 외형을 갖추려고 했을 뿐이므로, 방해받았다는 피해자의 청소 업무는 형법상 보호받을 가치가 있는 업무가 아니다. 2) 모욕의 점과 관련하여, 피고인 A가 ‘똘아이’라는 취지의 말을 한 사실은 있지만 이는 피해자 K에게 한 말이 아니라 피해자를 부축하고 있던 M에게 한 말이다.

B. The sentence of a fine of KRW 1 million imposed on Defendant A and a fine of KRW 500,000 imposed on Defendant E is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. 1) Grounds for misconception of facts and misapprehension of legal principles as follows, which are acknowledged by evidence duly adopted and investigated by the court below, i.e., ① the victim K and the Defendants are employees belonging to the corporation O (hereinafter “O”), the victim was temporarily in charge of cleaning the two-story of the management site in the judgment below, ② the victim was temporarily in charge of cleaning for three months around May 2012, ② the victim was temporarily in charge of cleaning the two-story during the period of temporary retirement. TheO was temporarily employed L for three months, and the victim was in charge of cleaning the two-story of the management site during the above temporary retirement period. The victim was enrolled in another trade union by withdrawing from the trade union that was affiliated with the Defendants, ③ the victim was affiliated with the other trade union, ③ the victim's request for reinstatement notified L of the suspension of cleaning work, and ordered the victim to resume cleaning work at the second floor from August 22, 2012, ④ the Defendants, B, C, and D, but the above management unit 2.