The judgment below

Part concerning Defendant A and C shall be reversed, respectively.

Defendant

A and C shall be punished by imprisonment for eight months.

(b).

Summary of Grounds for Appeal

Defendant

On July 20, 201, Defendant A et al. requested the J et al. to leave the office at the aggregate extraction site office of H Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “H”) on July 20, 201. Although the J and K were not confined, Defendant A et al. convicted of this part of the facts charged. The judgment of the court below erred by misapprehending the facts and adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment. Even if Defendant A’s act constitutes the element of the crime of confinement, Defendant A et al.’s act constitutes the element of the crime of confinement, Defendant A et al., holding 55% of the entire shares of H, and Defendant A et al., holding the 55% of the shares of H, to leave the office with the K and K to return the corporate funeral. Although Defendant A’s act constitutes the crime of confinement, Defendant A et al.’s act constitutes the crime of confinement, Defendant A et al.’s act was not erroneous by misapprehending the legal principles that it did not have any legitimate influence on the exercise of the right.

After having agreed to appoint “O” and “P” as a new site manager on July 29, 201, when Defendant C and 10% of the total shares of H in violation of the Punishment of Violences, etc. Act (joint conflict) were possessed by Defendant C and 10% of the total shares of H, the charges of this part of the charges are found guilty on the sole basis of the statement of J and B, etc. without credibility, even though there was no assault or intimidation by J.