All appeals by the Defendants are dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. misunderstanding of the facts or misunderstanding of the legal principles (the assertion after the submission period of the appeal, or the subsequent decision) led to the instant crime to prevent the on-site presentation of the instant case being illegally carried out, so the instant work is not worth protecting, but cannot be said to be illegal.

B. The sentence of each court below's unfair sentencing (Defendant A: a fine of 500,000 won, Defendant B: a fine of 300,000 won) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. 1) Determination of misunderstanding of facts or misapprehension of legal principles as to the assertion of interference with business under the Criminal Act (A) The term "business" subject to protection of interference with business under the Criminal Act is an occupation or a business which is continuously engaged in an occupation or continuously and which is worth protection from harm caused by an unlawful act of another person. Since such business is not necessarily necessary to be lawful or effective, the issue of whether it is a business worthy of legal protection is determined depending on whether it is actually peaceful and has become a foundation for social activities. Even if there are substantive or procedural defects in the process of commencement or performance of the business, the scope of such defect does not reach the degree of sociality to the extent that it cannot be easily acceptable (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2006Do382, Mar. 9, 2006). In order to establish a legitimate act under Article 201 of the Criminal Act, the general meeting of controlled entities (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2001Do38106, Apr. 1, 2003). 206