Defendant

All appeals filed by E and the prosecutor are dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Since K, M, J, S, and T, a member of the election management commission of Defendant E, resigned from the election management commission on August 19, 2016, the meeting of the commission for the self-election commission on August 25, 2016 cannot be deemed as a meeting that interferes with its business affairs. On August 25, 2016, the Defendant only attended the meeting by deeming that other persons attend the meeting of the commission for the election management commission and did not interfere with its business affairs.

In addition, there is no fact that the defendant conspireds with other Defendants to interfere with their duties.

Nevertheless, the judgment of the court below which found the defendant guilty of interference with one's own business on August 19, 2016 is erroneous in the misunderstanding of facts and legal principles.

B. On August 19, 2016, the Defendants: (a) constituted an emergency response committee; and (b) obtained a written consent that the representative election should be explained to be illegal election and re-election from those who have left voting at each polling station on August 19, 2016; (c) the Defendants’ act constitutes a threat of interfering with the duties of election management members, who are the victims; and (d) thereby, there was a risk of interference with the victims’ work.

Nevertheless, the judgment of the court below which acquitted the defendant on this part of the facts charged is erroneous.

2) On August 25, 2016, the Defendants and 10 residents told the victims of the fact that he/she interfered with one another with one’s business on August 25, 2016, the election management commission was wrong and continued to raise the arbitrity, even though the victims K had been seated around the table table of the victims’ meetings, and some Defendants called for the call that some of the Defendants would show the management rules or call another person’s statements to the victims occurring on the spot. The above Defendants’ act constitutes a threat of interference with business operations beyond the level of mere objection.

Nevertheless, it is not appropriate.