All of the appeals by prosecutors are dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. The judgment of the court below which acquitted the defendant on the ground that the defendant did not arrive at the site after the obstruction of the above duties even though it was clear that the defendant asserted that the defendant's interference with the duties of the defendant C was committed together at the site of the obstruction of the duties of the defendant A, B, and H

B. The act of confinement in this case alleged to be erroneous in the misapprehension of the legal principles as to Defendant B’s violation of the Punishment of Violences, etc. Act (the composition and activity of an organization, etc.), which is an active act aimed at the continuation and maintenance of a crime organization or group conducted by a systematic and collective decision-making.

In addition, the judgment of the court below which acquitted the defendant on the ground that it does not constitute a mere personal appraisal, is erroneous in the misunderstanding of facts or in the misunderstanding of legal principles.

(c)

The sentence that the court below sentenced against Defendant A and B (the fine of KRW 2 million, and the fine of KRW 5 million) is too uneased and unfair.

2. Determination

A. The lower court determined as to the Defendant’s assertion of mistake of facts against Defendant C, only can it recognize the fact that the Defendant had arrived at the O point, which is the place of crime that was held later than other behaviors A, J, etc., and at the time of the Defendant’s act of interference with the same duties as the criminal facts stated in the judgment of the J, A

It is insufficient to recognize it.

In light of the foregoing, not guilty was found.

The following circumstances that can be acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court below, namely, ① the location of the parties at the scene at the time of interference with the above duties, was not indicated by the defendant in the table table (Evidence No. 149 pages), ② the defendant did not appear in the CCTV image from which the J 90 road personnel was conducted, ③ the defendant who arrived at the above restaurant late, will take a bath to the employee P.