All appeals by the Defendants and the Prosecutor are dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Defendant A, B, C, D, E, F, G, H, I, J, and K are joint criminal acts as indicated in the judgment of the court below. Defendant A, B, D, E, F, H, I, and K are joint criminal acts as indicated in the judgment of the court below, and paragraphs 3 and 4 of the criminal facts as indicated in the judgment of the court below are Defendant A, C, D, D, E, I, J, and M's joint criminal acts as indicated in the judgment of the court below or for convenience.

1) As to the facts constituting the crime No. 2 as indicated in the judgment below, the victim’sO was unable to attend the office of Q port trade union (hereinafter “port union”) at a time beyond the duty hours and to be assigned a day-to-day reduction. Therefore, there was no victim’s duty to attend work. At the time, the victim entered the office of placement and the work situation, and the victim went beyond the stage of interfering with the victim’s duty to attend work.

Nevertheless, the court below which found the defendant guilty of this part of the facts charged erred by misunderstanding of facts or misunderstanding of legal principles.

B) Regarding the facts constituting the crime of the lower judgment, the victims R, T, and S did not notify the person in charge of the placement of work prior to the work to work on the following day, as well as the attendance at the port and in order to work, there is no work for the victims to work.

Nevertheless, the court below which found the defendant guilty of this part of the facts charged erred by misunderstanding of facts or misunderstanding of legal principles.

2) The sentence of the lower court (Defendant A, B, D, E, and I: each fine of 2 million won, Defendant C, F, G, H, and J: each fine of 1.5 million won, Defendant K, L, and M: each fine of 1.5 million won is too unreasonable.

B. According to the evidence submitted by the Prosecutor, Defendant C interfere with the victim’s O’s work at work.

Nevertheless, the court below's judgment that acquitted Defendant C of interference with the business of Defendant C's victim is erroneous.