The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.

The judgment below

Of all, the part concerning the obstruction of business to the Defendants.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Prosecutor 1) An assembly held by the Defendants claiming misunderstanding of the facts and misapprehension of the legal doctrine is obviously unlawful as it deviates from the scope of report in all respects, such as time, place, and method.

It is legitimate that the director of the Gangseo Police Station who took overall control of the site situation with legitimate authority granted by the head of the police station, the head of the police station at the time, was ordered to order the Defendants to dissolve three times as against the illegal assembly or demonstration.

The order of dissolution was otherwise unlawful.

There is no circumstance to view.

Therefore, the court below erred by misapprehending the facts or by misapprehending the legal principles.

2) As seen earlier, it is recognized that the Defendants violated the Assembly and Demonstration Act. As such, the lower court’s judgment that found the Defendants guilty of obstructing the performance of duties is inappropriate.

In addition, even if the act of interference with business itself is limited to the act of interference with business, the sentencing of the court below is too unfasible and unfair.

B. Defendants (misunderstanding of facts and misapprehension of legal doctrine)’s entry to a vehicle by the employees present at K does not result in the Defendants’ act.

K Guard stations at the time have been engaged in booming

R R's private land attached, which was dried at the entrance of the parking lot, in the vicinity of the parking blocking machine, and R was operated by mixing it with the parking blocking machine side, which was used by the K K's personnel in name unstrawing the R's shoulder and arms, and the unstamper R was used in that place while complaining for a sudden assault.

Accordingly, other K employees parked and left their own vehicles in front of the parking blocking machine while the vehicle cannot pass in the state of R.

Therefore, the prohibition of entry into the vehicle through the parking blocking of this case is due to the assault of the K employee and the parking of other K employees after it.