The Defendants’ appeal is dismissed.

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal (misunderstanding of facts and misapprehension of legal principles) ① With respect to road construction works on the section I of national highways ordered to the victim J and K Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “Co., Ltd.”) (hereinafter “instant construction works”), the managing agency of the original state’s land did not undergo a lawful environmental impact assessment on H sites (hereinafter “environmental impact assessment”). The managing agency of the original state’s land cannot file a lawsuit seeking revocation on the determination of the road zone beyond the filing period by changing the horses to continue to be incorporated into the road zone on H site and allowing the Defendants to file a lawsuit against the determination of the road zone beyond the filing period. As such, the instant construction work cannot be deemed as a work worthy of protection under the Criminal Act.

② The victims showed the attitude that they want to work at the above site by fraudulent means with the intent to lead a dispute, even though there is no specific work on the site of this case. In this respect, the victims’ work has no value of protection.

J did not secure a site and did not illegally damage another person's land under the pretext of establishing access roads for construction works, and caused the Defendants' resistance as if they were to do construction works, and attempted to perform construction works without any safety measures despite the risk of falling.

K will be required to construct access roads in the direction of the change of the family name, not the direction previously promised while opening access roads.

Afterward, the existing access road was cut to induce the defendants' resistance.

③ Defendant D taken photographs at the scene and did not interfere with the victims’ work by force.

2. In full view of the following circumstances acknowledged by the lower court’s duly admitted and investigated evidence, the work of the victims constitutes a duty of protection under the Criminal Act, and the Defendants’ interference with the work of the victims.