The Defendants’ appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of the grounds for appeal (misunderstanding of facts, misunderstanding of legal principles and improper sentencing)

A. The Defendants’ act does not constitute “power” of interference with their duties.

The Defendants only committed an act as described in the facts charged in order to make an objection against the Defendant’s offering of I Road Construction Works (hereinafter “instant Construction Works”) within the victim H Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “victim”).

B. In addition, the injured party company attempted to build a dangerous road by inserting a refrout of sea without complying with safety measures promised by not respecting the will of G, including the Defendants, without complying with the safety measures promised by G, including the Defendants. The work of the injured party company does not constitute “work” subject to protection of interference with business.

(c)

In particular, since the original local land management authority did not undergo legitimate environmental impact assessment on G sites (hereinafter “environmental impact assessment”) with respect to the instant construction project ordered by the victim company and W Company, etc., the instant construction project cannot be deemed a “business” worthy of protection under the Criminal Act.

(d)

Defendant

C only taken photographs at the site and did not interfere with the work of the victims by force.

E. Even if the Defendants’ act constitutes the element of the crime of interference with their duties, the Defendants’ act constitutes a justifiable act or self-help to prevent infringement of fundamental rights, such as right to life, environmental right, and right to pursue happiness, and thus, constitutes an unlawful act.

F. Each sentence of the lower court (Defendant A: fine of KRW 3 million; fine of KRW 1.5 million for Defendant B: fine of KRW 1.5 million; fine of KRW 1.5 million for Defendant C, D, and E) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. Determination as to whether the Defendants’ act constitutes “power of force” (1) The term “power of force” in the relevant legal doctrine refers to all force that may cause confusion with the free will of people, and is either tangible or intangible, or intangible.