All appeals by the Defendants and the Prosecutor are dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Defendants 1) misunderstanding of facts and misunderstanding of legal principles did not obstruct the business of the victim company, and Defendant B was out of the place of assembly in the process of managing the assembly and controlling the participants in the assembly, and did not clearly deviate from the place of assembly as an order keeper. 2) The sentence of the lower court on unreasonable sentencing (2 million won by each fine) is too unreasonable.

B. The above-mentioned sentence of the prosecutor is too unhued and unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. In full view of the following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly admitted and investigated by the lower court, the Defendants’ collusion to acknowledge the fact that the Defendants interfered with the legitimate construction work of the victim company by force, such as this part of the facts charged. Therefore, the Defendants’ allegation of mistake of facts or misapprehension of legal principles is without merit. (A) The participants of the assembly including the Defendants prevented the Defendants from entering the victim’s employees who were going to work in the construction site of the ESF (hereinafter “the construction site of this case”), and the participants of the assembly, including Defendant B, etc. prevented them from entering the victim’s employees who were going to work in the construction site of the ESF at the military. Some assemblies, such as the Defendants B, etc., by moving to the construction site of this case and leaving their employees

B) Some participants at an assembly strongly prevented other workers from working at the construction site by entering the front door of the vehicle with the front door, lying the front door of the vehicle, and the employees of the victim company her company endeded to work at the construction site and returned to the work site. (C) The Defendants asserted that they did not prohibit workers from entering the construction site after September 23, 2017. However, according to the video of the on-site video CD submitted by the prosecution, the Defendants could also check the fact that the Defendants prevented workers from entering the construction site until September 23, 2017.