All appeals are dismissed.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

1. Regarding ground of appeal No. 1

A. Article 5-9(2) of the former Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes (amended by Act No. 10210, Mar. 31, 2010; hereinafter “Specialized Family Act”) provides that “The purpose of retaliation against the provision of a criminal investigation team, such as a criminal charge, statement, testimony or submission of materials in connection with the investigation or trial of a criminal case of a criminal case of a person or a third party” or “the purpose of prohibiting the provision of a criminal investigation team, such as a criminal charge, a statement, testimony or submission of materials, or the purpose of prohibiting the submission of a criminal charge, such as a criminal charge, a statement, testimony or submission of materials, or the submission of a false statement or testimony,” under the Criminal Act, a person who commits a crime of assault, intimidation

Here, the issue of whether an actor had such an objective ought to be reasonably determined in light of social norms by comprehensively taking into account the following factors: the offender’s age, occupation, and other personal factors; the motive and process of the crime; the method of the act; the content and mode of the act; personal relationship with the victim; and the circumstances before

B. According to the reasoning of the lower court and the first instance court’s reasoning and the evidence duly admitted by the first instance court, the assault and intimidation alleged in the facts charged in the instant case occurred from November 18, 2008 to 15:30, from the 14:00, to the 15:30, the Seoul Central District Court’s office, 311, and at the same time, the Internet camera members, “P,” under the above court’s jurisdiction, pressured the advertiser in the form of collective communication call, Internet homepage automatic connection, false Internet reservation on goods, thereby obstructing the advertiser’s business. The Seoul Central District Court 2008 Godan5024 case was tried on the charges of interfering with the advertiser’s business. The Defendants are the above Internet camera members, and the victim is the victim’s automatic connection on the Internet homepage and goods.