All appeals by the Defendants and the Prosecutor are dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Since Defendants (1) have the right to have access to the company by mistake of facts (A) as to the entry of a common structure into the company, the Defendants cannot be said to have invaded on the structure.

(B) As to the crime of joint injury and joint assault, the Defendants cannot be deemed to have committed a conspiracy at the time of committing this part of the crime. 2) The victims of the crime of joint injury cannot be deemed to have suffered injury.

(C) As to the obstruction of business, the company’s act of preventing the Defendants does not constitute legitimate facility security service, it cannot be said that the Defendants interfered with the company’s facility security service.

(2) In light of the legal principles, the Defendants’ act constitutes a constituent element of entering a building, even if the Defendants’ act constitutes a legitimate trade union activity, or funeral procedure, and thus, the illegality is dismissed.

(B) As to the joint assault by Defendant C, B, and D, the above Defendants committed a passive resistance against the employees who unfairly restrain the said Defendants from having access to the company, and thus, the said Defendants’ act is justified as it constitutes a legitimate act.

(3) Each sentence (Defendant A, B, C, and D: Imprisonment with prison labor for 10 months, 2 years of suspended sentence, Defendant E, F, G, and H: Imprisonment with prison labor for 6 months, 2 years of suspended sentence, Defendant I: Imprisonment with prison labor for 8 months, 2 years of suspended sentence, 2 years of suspended sentence, and 2 years of suspended sentence) on the Defendants are excessively unreasonable.

B. In full view of the evidence submitted by the prosecutor (1) and the prosecutor of mistake of facts, the judgment below which acquitted the Defendants on this part of the facts charged on the ground that there is no evidence to acknowledge that the Defendants sufficiently interfere with the legitimate business of the victim.

(2) Each of the above types imposed by the lower court on the grounds of unfair sentencing is too uneasible and unfair.

2. Determination:

A. On the part of the Defendants’ assertion of mistake of facts (1) as to the co-existence of a common structure.