All appeals filed by the Defendants and the prosecutor against the Defendants are dismissed.

1. According to the records on the Defendants’ appeal, the Defendants appealed against the lower judgment on April 20, 2015, and filed an appeal. Defendant B was served on May 15, 2015, and Defendant A received notification of the receipt of each of the notification of the receipt of the trial records and the notice of the appointment of a public defender on July 13, 2015. The Defendants did not submit the statement of grounds for appeal or request the appointment of a public defender within 20 days, which is the submission period for the statement of grounds for appeal under Article 361-3(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act. The Defendants did not state the grounds for appeal even in the petition of appeal filed by the Defendants, and there are no reasons for ex

2. Summary of grounds for appeal by a prosecutor;

A. Inasmuch as misunderstanding of facts and misunderstanding of legal principles (the part of acquittal in the original judgment) 1, the Defendants’ interference with the business due to the Defendants’ participation in demonstration on April 4, 2012 (hereinafter “instant shopping mall”), including the Defendants, at the time of the instant case, the Seo-gu Daejeon District of H building (hereinafter “instant shopping mall”).

) The H building business association consisting of the shop occupants (hereinafter referred to as the “H building business association”).

(2) The court below held to the effect that it is difficult to readily conclude the above inducements as false facts, while recognizing the fact-finding relations with the Defendants, stating the purport that the management authority of the commercial building of this case was in the management authority of the commercial building of this case, and it is difficult to recognize the intent of the above inducements as false facts, inasmuch as it is reasonable to deem that the Defendants’ act of leaving the place of business and participating in the demonstration was committed by one means of collective expression at the time, and that it constitutes a force capable of suppressing the other party’s free will. Therefore, the crime of interference with business is established as to this part of the facts charged.

However, the management authority of the above commercial building is not the management body.