All appeals by the Defendants are dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. The judgment of the court below which found Defendant A and B guilty of criminal facts against the above Defendants is erroneous in the misapprehension of legal principles as follows.

1) [2015 order 1123] 1-c.

With regard to the obstruction of defendant A's business, the defendant's act is not illegal as a legitimate act of dispute.

2) [2015 order 1123] 2-D

With regard to the violation of the Punishment of Violence, etc. Act (joint residential intrusion) by Defendant A, the Defendant entered a club bar for a legitimate dispute, and the Defendant was entitled to access the said club, and thus does not constitute an intrusion on the structure.

3) [2016 order 292] With respect to the violation of the Assembly and Demonstration Act (hereinafter “Act”) by Defendant A and B, an assembly organized by the Defendants is exempted from report as part of a legitimate dispute action, and is not unlawful as a legitimate act, and there is no possibility that the Defendants may report the assembly to the Defendants.

B. The sentence imposed by the lower court on the Defendants (Defendant A, B, and G: one year and two years of imprisonment, two years of probation, 80 hours of community service order, Defendant D: 10 months of imprisonment, two years of probation, 80 hours of community service order, Defendant E, F, H, and I: 10 months of probation, two years of probation, 40 hours of community service order, Defendant C, K, and L: six months of probation, one year of probation, one year of probation, and one million won of fine) are too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. Determination as to Defendant A and B’s assertion of misunderstanding of the legal doctrine) In order to become a legitimate act under the Criminal Act, Defendant A and B’s act of dispute must satisfy all the conditions, such as that the means and method should be harmonized with the employer’s property rights, as well as that it should not constitute the exercise of violence (see Supreme Court Decision 2010Do15499, May 23, 2013).