All appeals filed against the Defendants and the Prosecutor A are dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. As to the crime No. 1 in the judgment of the court below, Defendants 1 and misunderstanding of the legal principles) as to the crime No. 1 in the judgment of the court below, the act as described in No. 1, 2, 4, and 7 of the List of Crimes No. 1, 2, and 7 as indicated in the judgment of the court below

In addition, Defendant A had the authority to enter the F head office until August 30, 2013 because he had maintained the status as the victim F's employee and the representative of the trade union.

Therefore, even if the act Nos. 1 through 5 of the daily list of crimes attached to the judgment of the court below by Defendant A constitutes force as to the obstruction of business affairs, this constitutes a crime of interference with business affairs, since the F's employees were generated in the process of unreasonably preventing Defendant A from entering the headquarters of Defendant F.

B) As to the crime No. 2-A of the facts constituting the crime in the lower judgment, the Defendants were entitled to access to the labor union office as of July 11, 2013 for the purpose of access to the labor union office and labor union activities, etc., and thus, the Defendants are not charged with intrusion on structures.

C) Regarding the crime No. 2-B of the facts of the crime in the judgment below, F shall install CCTV at the Youngcheon Branch after obtaining the consent of the Defendants who are data subjects pursuant to the Personal Information Protection Act and undergoing the procedures of consultation with the labor-management council pursuant to the Act on the Promotion of Workers’ Participation and Cooperation. However, since the installation of CCTV in the instant case did not comply with such procedures, it does not constitute a business of obstructing the business

Even if the defendants' act such as this part of the facts charged can be seen as a legitimate act, the illegality of the defendants' act is excluded.

D) Nevertheless, the lower court erred by misapprehending the fact that the lower court found the Defendant guilty of the instant facts charged or by misapprehending the relevant legal doctrine, thereby adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment.

2) Each sentence (Defendant A: Imprisonment with prison labor for six months, suspension of execution for two years, and Defendant B: 50,000 won.