All appeals by the Defendants and the prosecutor are dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. As to the charge of interference with business, Defendants (1) (1) and (2) do not constitute force, and even if they fall under force, the act of parking a vehicle does not constitute a crime of interference with business. ② As to the charge of interference with worship acknowledged as guilty, the Defendants did not reach the preparation stage of worship at the time they went on the platform, and one set of worship was carried out at the latest. Nevertheless, the lower court convicting the Defendants of the above crime of mistake of facts and misapprehension of legal principles as to interference with business and interference with business, thereby adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment. (2) In relation to defamation ①, it is reasonable to view that the Defendants perceived the facts alleged by the Prosecutor as false facts, according to the evidence submitted by the Prosecutor, and thus, the illegality of the Defendants is not denied under Article 310 of the Criminal Act.

② With respect to the insult of Defendant A, the above Defendant’s speech cannot be deemed as a justifiable act which is acceptable under the social norms.

③ In relation to the part that sound, such as “Fraudd, I, etc., in the conduct of obstruction of worship,” the Defendants could sufficiently recognize that the Defendants made the above speech according to the witness’s testimony.

Nevertheless, the lower court erred by misapprehending the legal doctrine and thereby adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment, which affected the conclusion of the judgment, on the part of the Defendants.

B. 1) The lower court’s respective punishment (a fine of KRW 800,000) against the Defendants is so unreasonable that each sentence (a fine of KRW 800,00) against the Defendants is too unreasonable.2) The lower court’s respective punishment against the Defendants by the prosecutor is too un

2. Determination

A. The force of the crime of interference with business on the part of the Defendants and their defense counsel’s assertion of mistake of facts and misapprehension of legal principles is to be affected.