All appeals by the Defendants are dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. The victim's work of mistake of facts or misapprehension of legal principles is not subject to protection of the crime of interference with business as a duty without protection value, and even if not, the defendants' act constitutes legitimate act for preserving the property rights of the defendant A

Nevertheless, the judgment of the court below which found the defendant guilty of the facts charged of this case is erroneous in misapprehension of legal principles.

B. The lower court’s sentence of unreasonable sentencing (the Defendant A’s fine of KRW 6 million, the Defendant B’s fine of KRW 2.5 million, the Defendant C’s fine of KRW 1 million, and the Defendant D, E, and F’s fine of KRW 1.5 million) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. First of all, determination of misunderstanding of facts or misunderstanding of legal principles regarding the argument that the victim’s agricultural and fishery business is not worth protecting. The term “business subject to protection of interference with business” under the Criminal Act refers to the business or business that is engaged in occupation or continuously, which is worth protecting from infringement by another’s unlawful act, and the contract that forms the basis of the business is not necessarily lawful (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2002Do1747, Apr. 11, 2003). On the other hand, whether the business is worthy of legal protection is determined based on whether the business is carried out in a peaceful manner and becomes the basis of social activities. Even if there are substantive or procedural defects in the process of commencement or performance of the business, the degree is subject to protection of the crime of interference with business so long as the degree does not reach the counter-social level (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2008Do2344, May 27, 2010).

B. The instant case was leased until the time of the instant case.