All appeals are dismissed.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

1. For the reasons stated in its reasoning, the lower court found the Defendant not guilty on the grounds that there was no proof of the crime committed against Defendant A, Defendant A, and Defendant B among the charges of this case on the ground that there was no proof of the crime as to the attached Table 2 Nos. 3, 7, 19, Defendant A, D, E, and the part concerning the crime among the obstruction of duties due to the failure to meet the first interview in 2016, among the charges of this case, among the obstruction of duties due to the failure to pass the first interview with Defendant A, and D in the first interview with Defendant A, and D in 2015, among the charges of this case, from among the obstruction of duties due to the failure to pass the first interview with Defendant A, the part concerning the obstruction of duties due to the failure to pass the first interview with Defendant A, D, and E in the document screening service occupational group in the judgment of the lower court in 2017.

The judgment below

Examining the reasoning in light of the relevant legal principles and records, the lower court did not err in its judgment by exceeding the bounds of the principle of free evaluation of evidence against logical and empirical rules, or by misapprehending the legal doctrine on the number of crimes and joint principal

The prosecutor also appealed the guilty portion of the judgment of the court below, but the appellate brief does not state the grounds for objection to this part.

2. As to the grounds of appeal by Defendant A, D, and F, the lower court convicted Defendant A, D, and F of the charges charged against Defendant A, D, and F, on the grounds as indicated in its reasoning.

The judgment below

Examining the reasoning in light of the relevant legal principles and evidence duly admitted, the lower court did not err by exceeding the bounds of the principle of free evaluation of evidence against logical and empirical rules, or by misapprehending the legal doctrine on the establishment of the crime of interference with business.

3. As to the Defendant C’s grounds of appeal, the lower court convicted Defendant C of the charge, excluding the above acquittal portion, on the grounds as indicated in its reasoning.

The judgment below

The reason is legitimate.