beta
Text
All appeals filed by the Defendants against A, B, C, D, E, H, J, K, M, and S are dismissed.
Reasons
1. Summary of grounds for appeal;
A. On June 9, 201, Defendants A, B, C, D, E, and F interference with the business of U Franchi Line on the part of June 9, 201 (other than the injury) by mistake of facts or misapprehension of legal principles (the remaining part) cannot be deemed as interference with the business of Defendant A, C, D, E, and F as entering the instant U by the consent on boarding of Samsung T&T A. It does not constitute interference with the business of the Defendants’ act of demanding the discontinuance of construction or carrying out relief. In particular, Defendant D, and E took the scene only.
In addition, it is illegal to force the construction of the sea of this case in the state of damage to the deposit prevention prevention room, and the Defendants committed the above act to demand its suspension, so it cannot be deemed that the Defendants had the intent to interfere with the business, and it constitutes a legitimate act.
B) On June 18, 2011, the interference with the Z-related duties of Defendant A did not take the diving equipment, and the act of Defendant A and I on board the Z alone does not constitute interference with the operation of the Z. Furthermore, Defendant A only took on the field pictures and did not interfere with the operation of the Z, and Defendant B did not take on board and let only one member of the organizations opposite to the construction, and did not interfere with the Zf and AE on June 20, 201, and Defendant C did not interfere with the course of the Z. Defendant AF and AE-related duties. Defendant C did not go to the AF, a tugboat, but did not go to the captain’s restraint of the Z trees, and Defendant C and A went to the AE with the consent of the Maritime Order, but rather went to the AE, which was the part of the Z.
Defendant
B The Defendant J and K demanded the suspension of illegal construction on board the fishing vessel operated by the Defendant J and K, and the Defendant D was taking the site as a camera, and Defendant H was merely a statement of the demand for the suspension of construction upon arrival in the vicinity of the site line after the order of the head of the site office to discontinue the work.
Therefore, the Defendants’ above.