The judgment below

Of them, the part on Defendant B shall be reversed.

Defendant

B shall be punished by a fine of 700,000 won.

Defendant

B.

1. Determination on the grounds for appeal by Defendant A, C, and D

A. The summary of the grounds of appeal 1) The Defendants did not interfere with the towing of vessels the J is underway.

However, the J notified that it is not possible to perform services in the principal church of the I church, and only prevented the entry of the J and the believers following it.

Therefore, the lower court, which recognized the establishment of a crime of interference with worship prior to the performance of worship, has erred by misapprehending the legal doctrine (hereinafter “the first argument”). (2) Defendant A, C, and D attempted to perform worship at the principal church of the I church, and prepared to do so. However, among the above Defendants and the dispute, the Defendants occupied the stairs leading up to this point so that they may not enter the main body of the defect in order to perform worship without prior notice.

As such, the above Defendants did not conspired to obstruct the J’s towing, and did not take passive measures to protect the above Defendants’ places of worship, but the Defendants conspired to obstruct the worship of the Defendants.

The court below erred by misunderstanding facts or misunderstanding legal principles (hereinafter referred to as "the second assertion") and misunderstanding the facts or misunderstanding the legal principles in the court below's judgment which held that the defendant Gap, C, and D's conduct of worship by expressing his intention to resign from the position of wood company (hereinafter referred to as "the second assertion") is subject to the protection of the obstruction of worship (hereinafter referred to as "the third assertion"). 4) Since the obstruction of worship by the defendant Gap, C, and D is a justifiable act that does not go against the social rules, it is not unlawful.

Therefore, the obstruction of the Defendants’ worship does not constitute a justifiable act.

The lower court erred by misapprehending the facts or by misapprehending the legal doctrine (hereinafter “the allegation No. 4”). B. 1) Inasmuch as the crime of interference with worship 1’s assertion is deemed as a legal interest protected by the law, the peace of worship is in progress or is closely in the course of worship and time.