The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. The gist of the grounds for appeal is that the Defendant only made the representatives present at the meeting of the representatives to inform the current situation of the association and to urge them to exercise legitimate voting rights, and there was no intention to obstruct the meeting of the representatives, without any brupt behavior or violence.

The illegality of the Defendant’s act does not constitute “defensive force” in the crime of interference with business, and even if the act constitutes interference with business, it constitutes a legitimate act socially reasonable.

Nevertheless, the court below erred by misapprehending the facts or by misapprehending the legal principles, and sentenced the Defendant guilty.

2. The reasoning of the judgment of the court below is as follows, which is acknowledged by evidence duly adopted and investigated by the court below, in other words, even if a representative meeting of the cooperative is subject to attendance at the meeting of the union and the executive officers of the union, in the absence of prior prohibition of witness by the union members, the witness per se cannot be prohibited. However, the defendant's act of the defendant cannot be viewed as an act that constitutes a "act that constitutes an act that constitutes a "act that constitutes a "act that constitutes a "act that constitutes an act that constitutes a "act that constitutes a "act that constitutes an act that constitutes a "act that constitutes an act that constitutes a "act that constitutes an act that constitutes a "act that constitutes a "act that is reasonable in terms of social norms," and the defendant was suspended from the meeting of the council." The defendant tried to exercise influence on the meeting while demanding the representatives to pass through the meeting, and the defendant did not leave the meeting of the representative, and did not see that the act of the defendant constitutes an act that constitutes an "act that is reasonable in terms of social norms and norms."

Therefore, the judgment of the court below is justified.