The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.

1. According to the summary of the grounds of appeal (misunderstanding of facts and legal principles), although the Defendants could sufficiently recognize the fact that the Defendants intruded into the training center for the purpose of interfering with the P’s duties, which is the honorary director L, general director, O, or manager of facilities, and interfere with the actual duties, the lower court erred by misapprehending the facts or by misapprehending the legal doctrine, thereby acquitted each of the facts charged in this case.

2. In light of the records, a thorough examination of the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court below and the statements of the witness AJ conducted in the trial by the court below, the court below's determination that "the evidence submitted by the prosecutor alone alone did harm the N Training Institute or intrude into the aforesaid training center against the will of the manager, or did not interfere with the duties of L,O, P and its intentional intention" is just and acceptable.

Meanwhile, according to the records, Defendant A and F filed a preliminary injunction against the Defendant A and F, etc. on April 13, 2015, including the following grounds: (a) on the ground that Defendant A and F, etc. received a request from KK to suspend the unauthorized occupation of the N Training Institute on May 6, 2015, who was appointed as the representative director of the N Training Institute Q (hereinafter “ Q”) as the superior agency of the N Training Institute; and (b) the said N Training Institute or its employees to seek voluntary withdrawal; and (c) on the ground that Q did not comply with the request of the N Training Institute or its employees, the former District Court rendered a provisional injunction against the Defendant A and F, etc. on the grounds that Q was subject to the provisional injunction against the passage of N Training Institute’s building and land by 100000,000, such as N Training Institute’s entry and possession interference; (d) Defendant A and F, the lower court rendered a provisional injunction against the foregoing Defendant A and Q 2015 (TF) immediately before October 19, 2015