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

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Fact-misunderstanding and misapprehension of legal principles, including the Defendants

The members of the O shared the purpose of hindering the general meeting of shareholders under the instruction and guidance of the specific union members, and the implementation of this purpose led to ① the control of the late door door door door entrance, ② the refusal to leave, ③ the attempt to occupy the general meeting of shareholders, etc.

In the case of the post-gate entrance control act, since there was an opinion among the union members in advance, it is recognized that the recruitment relationship between the union members including the Defendants was recognized and the refusal to leave due to the year, and the conspiracy relation should also be recognized.

However, the lower court found the Defendants not guilty of this part of the facts charged in that it erred by misapprehending the legal principles and misconceptions of the facts, with the purport of denying the Defendants’ collusion with respect to the above acts and acts.

B. Sentencing unfair sentencing by the court below is unfair because it is too uneasible to each sentence (excluding Defendant F: fine of 300,000 won and Defendant F: the remaining Defendants except Defendant F: the suspended sentence of a fine of 300,000 won) sentenced to the Defendants.

2. Determination

A. As to the assertion of misunderstanding of facts and misapprehension of the legal doctrine, it should be the case that at least two persons who are the joint principal offender of the public offering should become one of them to commit a specific criminal act with a common intent and shift their own intent to practice using another person’s act. Accordingly, the fact that the crime was committed should be recognized, but the joint principal offender of the public offering should be established.

In addition, since the above public offering or conspiracy is "the facts that will be a crime" in the joint principal offender, it shall be based on strict proof, and it shall not be necessary to decide in detail the details thereof, but it shall be found that the public offering has been established at least in accordance with the above purport.