All appeals by the Defendants and by the Prosecutor against Defendant C are dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Defendants 1) In regard to the Defendants’ crime committed on July 21, 2017 by the Defendants, the school juristic person F University (hereinafter “F University”) constitutes “employer” under the Trade Union and Labor Relations Adjustment Act (hereinafter “Trade Union Act”), and FJ, the employer, is obligated to authorize the Defendants to take industrial action.

The Defendants’ act committed on July 21, 2017 is an act within several obligations and constitutes a violation of the Punishment of Violence, etc. Act (joint residence or misunderstanding of legal principles) and is not recognized as constituting a justifiable act (the act committed on July 21, 2017). As to Defendant C’s crime on July 21, 2017, Defendant C as a general member, was not entered the secretariat and the office chief on the day of the instant case, and thus, it cannot be deemed that Defendant A and B committed a crime on July 21, 2017 in collaboration with Defendant A and B, and thus, it cannot be deemed that the Defendants committed a crime on July 21, 2017 (legal scenario; c), thereby finding the Defendants guilty of the facts charged on July 21, 2017.

2) The sentence imposed by the lower court on the sentence of unfair sentencing (one year of the suspended sentence in April, and one year of the suspended sentence in the imprisonment of a fine of three million won, and one year of the suspended sentence in the imprisonment of a fine of two million won in the case of a defendant C) is too unreasonable. Furthermore, the suspended sentence of a fine of two million won (two million won in the fine imposed by the lower court to the defendant C is too unreasonable.

2. Judgment on the misunderstanding of facts or misapprehension of legal principles by the Defendants

A. The Defendants alleged to the same effect as the grounds for appeal in the lower court, and the lower court, based on the respective statements made by the investigating agencies of the persons concerned, entered the NN’s office against the explicit or presumed intent of N, and the Defendants.