Of the judgment of the court below of first instance, the guilty portion against the Defendants, the conviction portion among the judgment of the court of second instance, and the judgment of the court below and 5.

1. On June 1, 2007, the first instance court found Defendant A and F not guilty of interference with the business of Defendant A and F, and pronounced guilty of each of the remaining facts charged. Since only the Defendants appealed on the conviction and the aforementioned acquittal became final and conclusive separately, the scope of the party members' trial is limited to the part of the first instance judgment and the remaining part of the lower judgment by the Defendants and the Prosecutor.

2. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. On the judgment of the court below of first instance (defendants) 1, the criminal facts of the above crime Paragraph (1) (Defendants) (hereinafter referred to as the "Defendants") did not infringe upon the L Center with Defendant A and D to participate in education after receiving text messages from R branch BX, and did not intend to enter the L Center to participate in education. It is limited to Defendant I (hereinafter referred to as "I") at the entrance of the district office of education at the time.

(2) In the event that an employee’s act of force prevents and responding thereto, and notification was made by I unilaterally to the effect that education was revoked, the Defendants did not interfere with the affected company’s work by force. In addition, Defendant B’s act of propaganda against I teachers in front of the K Building at the time of the building and confirmed the entry into the L Center’s office late, and thus, it cannot be deemed as an unauthorized intrusion, and further, it does not interfere with the work by force at the above L Center’s office’s office’s above criminal facts(2)(Defendant A, B, C, and D) ①

(a) and (b)

In relation to the claim, Defendant F was aware that he was illegally dismissed in I and did not intrude into M building without permission by sending out official doors to interview the human resource development team leader in charge of personnel affairs with the knowledge of the fact that he was illegally dismissed, and it cannot be deemed that there was a threat of force since all other members of the union, other than the union members conducting the above interview, were waiting in the corridor and did not have any disturbance.

(2) above.