All appeals by the Defendants and the Prosecutor are dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Defendants 1) misunderstanding of facts and misunderstanding of legal principles merely verified whether they belong to the Korean labor union and whether they work as substitute workers at the time of the instant assembly, and did not interfere with the work of the victim company by force. In addition, the Defendants did not jointly interfere with the work of the victim company as stated in the judgment of the court below. 2) Each sentence of the lower court (Defendant A, B, C, D: imprisonment with prison labor for 6 months, suspended execution 2 years, Defendant E: imprisonment with prison labor for 4 months and suspended execution 1 year) is too unreasonable.

B. Prosecutor 1) While finding guilty of interference with each business on August 16, 2012 and December 22 through 24, 2012 among the facts charged in the instant case, the lower court erred by misapprehending the legal doctrine and acquitted the Defendant. 2) Each sentence of the lower court (Defendant A, B, C, and D: Imprisonment with prison labor for six months and suspension of execution, two years of suspended execution, and one year of suspended execution, and one year of suspended execution) is unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. Determination on the Defendants’ assertion of mistake of facts and misapprehension of legal principles is established by satisfying the subjective objective requirements, which are the execution of a crime through a joint processing intent and the functional control based on its joint intent. Even in a case where part of the competitors have not been carried out by directly sharing part of the elements of a crime, if it is acknowledged that a functional control through an essential contribution to a crime exists, rather than a simple conspiracy, if it is deemed that a functional control exists through an essential contribution to the crime, it shall not be exempted from the so-called crime liability (see, e.g., Supreme Court en banc Decision 98Do321, May 21, 1998; Supreme Court Decision 2002Do995, Jun. 24, 2004; Supreme Court Decision 2002Do512, Mar. 11, 2005; Supreme Court Decision 2002Do51263, Feb. 26, 2006).