All appeals by the Defendants are dismissed.

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal 1) misunderstanding of facts and misapprehension of legal principles as to the facts of the crime No. 1 as indicated in the judgment of the court below (1) , 1) as to the ownership of N-50 Ma1 and Ma2 plant (hereinafter “N-500 plant”) at the time of the instant case as to the ownership of the entire equipment of N-50 Ma1 and Ma2 plant (hereinafter “N-500 equipment”) and the time of dispute between the damaged company and D (hereinafter “D”), it cannot be deemed that the damaged company’s act of removing N-50 equipment without the consent of D constitutes a business worthy of protection.

② Defendant A had ownership of N-500 installations at the time of the instant case D

I think of the damage company's act of removing N-500 equipment, so there is no intention to interfere with the work.

(2) In light of the agreement made on January 9, 2015 between D and the victimized company on the crime No. 2 of the lower judgment, since the ownership of N-500 facilities is D, the act of the victimized company’s taking out the N-500 facilities, which are the property owned by another person, does not constitute a business subject to protection of the crime of interference with business.

② At the time of the instant case, there was a dispute between D and the damaged company on the ownership of N-500 equipment.

Also, the act of the injured company to remove N-500 equipment without the consent of D does not constitute a duty worth protecting, and the Defendants have ownership of N-500 equipment.

As we think, there is no intention to obstruct the business.

2) The lower court’s sentence (Defendant A: a fine of KRW 5 million; Defendant B: a fine of KRW 2 million) against the illegal Defendants is too unreasonable.

2. 1) The Defendants asserted that there was a misunderstanding of facts and misapprehension of legal principles in the lower court’s judgment.

The lower court rejected its assertion on the following grounds.

① On October 23, 2013, Defendant A and the employees of the victimized Company met with respect to the removal of factory facilities at the meeting room of the victimized Company. On October 23, 2013, the minutes were N.