All appeals by the Defendants are dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. misunderstanding of facts or misunderstanding of legal principles (Defendant A: the case of the lower court’s 2010 High Court Decision 1902) at the time of the presentation for managerial pending issues is the Q Trade Union (hereinafter “Rnool”).

(2) The Defendant’s act of demanding information on business issues or preventing unfair labor practices on the part of its members constitutes a justifiable act, and thus, does not constitute “business” worth protecting under the Criminal Act, but merely hummatic or verbal disputes do not constitute “competence” as provided for in the crime of interference with business. Furthermore, the Defendant’s act of demanding information on business issues or preventing unfair labor practices on the part of its members is justified.

B. misunderstanding of facts or misunderstanding of legal principles (Defendant A, B, C, D, and E: the lower court’s judgment 2010 high-level 3578) 1) The Defendants merely punished physical fighting and did not commit assault or injury to the victims. 2) Although the invitation of external instructors of a trade union was a legitimate association activity guaranteed by a collective agreement and labor practice, the private side committed unfair labor practices that interfere with legitimate trade union activities by preventing the entry of an attorney-at-law who is an instructor, and the Defendants’ acts passively opposed thereto are not contrary to the social rules, and thus, the illegality is dismissed.

C. misunderstanding of facts or misunderstanding of legal principles (Defendant A, B, C, F, G, H, I, and J: the lower court’s judgment) 1) the Defendants did not have invaded on a structure as stated in the lower judgment, and there is no credibility or credibility in the statements of the victims who were assaulted, and the crime of interference with business is not established to exclude unfair labor practices such as interference with the strike of the private sector. Furthermore, these acts by the Defendants are excluded as acts contrary to legitimate partnership activities or social norms.

2. Determination:

A. As to the argument of the lower judgment in the instant case, one employer also has the freedom to express his/her opinion, the employer.