All appeals by the Defendants and the Prosecutor are dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Defendants (Definite or misunderstanding of legal principles) 1) 2013 high-level 3101 case (Defendant A-legal scenario) workers agreed on the resumption of operation on condition that when additional patients occur or additional risks are discovered after the resumption of operation of a motor vehicle manufacturer divers at around 21:30, inasmuch as additional patients occur after 21:30, there is no need for protection, and thus, it does not constitute an element for crime of interference with business since the act of Defendant A’s aforementioned act constitutes an act of resistance against the private company, which constitutes an act of resistance against the private company, and thus, it is not unlawful as it constitutes an emergency escape to avoid the present danger to the life and body of others. 2) The Defendants’ act of refusing access to the motor vehicle under Article 1(a) (No. 1) of the Criminal facts Act (No. 2013 high-level 343) as stated in the judgment of the court below, and the Defendants’ act of suspending access to the pertinent motor vehicle manufacturer at issue is not an exclusive power.

Under special circumstances such as the strike of non-regular workers, the Defendants (Defendant D is only the above paragraph (b) with support for the strike and suspended a dog for the purpose of confirming the status of a non-regular worker, not a interference with the work, so it is a legitimate act, and the body fighting in the work space has suspended a dog to prevent accidents of a sponser.