All appeals by the defendants and prosecutor are dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. The Defendants’ misunderstanding of the facts or misapprehension of the legal doctrine 1) In relation to the infringement of a structure, it is unlawful to recognize this part of the facts charged but not following the amendment procedures required therefor, on the grounds that the lower court infringed on the above summary provided for the use of “Sule vehicle notification” that was not stated in the facts charged.

B) It is difficult to regard the site of the lighting tower as falling under the above summary provided for the use of the Saemaul tea and the site of the lighting tower as falling under the above summary. The Defendants did not have the intention of intrusion on the structure since the site of the lighting tower could not be recognized as the above summary provided for the use of the Saemaul tea and the ground for its use.

2) With respect to the point of interference with business, a) due to the blocking of the power source of lighting towers, the entry of Korean Railroad at night in the Korean railroad construction has obstructed.

corporation, and even if there was a result or risk of interference with the business

Even if the result of such interference is not the force of the Defendants' occupation and farming, but the result of the decision to block all lighting towers on the part of the Korean Railroad Corporation, and it is difficult to recognize the direct causal relationship between the Defendants' occupation and farming behavior and the result of business interference.

B) The Defendants did not seem to have been able to block all of them on the part of the Korean Railroad Construction Corporation, because only up to the middle atmosphere of the lighting tower, and thus, the Defendants had intention to interfere with the Defendants’ night-time exchange operations of the Korean Railroad Corporation.

subsection (b) of this section.

B. The lower court’s sentencing (a fine of KRW 4 million for each of the 4 million) against the Defendants alleged unfair sentencing by the prosecutor is unreasonable.

2. Judgment on the Defendants’ misunderstanding of facts or misapprehension of legal principles

A. As to the point of intrusion on a structure, it is judged that there was an error that did not go through the amendment of indictment.