All the judgment below against the Defendants is reversed.

Defendant

X-Y Y 2,400,000 won, Defendant A.

1. Scope of trial of this court after remand;

A. On September 5, 2012, the Defendants were sentenced to a fine of 2.5 million won for the crime of interference with business and the Punishment of Minor Offenses Act (hereinafter “the first judgment”) in Jeju District Court Decision 2012Hun-Ma399, and the Defendants appealed on the grounds of mistake of facts, misunderstanding of legal principles, and unreasonable sentencing.

B. Meanwhile, in the instant case on May 8, 2013, Defendant A was sentenced to six months of imprisonment with prison labor or two years of suspended execution as a result of the crime of interference with business (hereinafter “the second judgment”) and Defendant A filed each appeal on the grounds of mistake of facts, misapprehension of legal principles, and unfair sentencing, on the grounds of unfair sentencing.

C. The first judgment against the Defendants was reversed by combining the above two cases, and the Defendants were acquitted, and both Defendant A and the Prosecutor’s appeal against the second judgment were dismissed.

Accordingly, with respect to the crime of interference with business committed on July 16, 2012, the guilty part of the judgment of the party prior to the remanding of Defendant A, the prosecutor appealed on the part of the Defendants, who were not guilty, on February 9, 2012, on the crime of interference with business and the crime of violation of the Punishment of Minor Offenses Act.

E. Meanwhile, the appellate court rejected the prosecutor’s appeal on the part concerning the violation of the Punishment of Minor Offenses Act among the acquitted portion of the verdict prior to remanding. The prosecutor’s appeal on the crime of interference with business as of February 9, 2012 was accepted by the prosecutor’s appeal on the part concerning the crime of interference with business as of February 9, 2012, and reversed it. The part concerning the crime of interference with business as of February 9, 2012, which found Defendant A guilty on the part concerning the crime of interference with business as of July 16, 2012 (the part concerning the crime of interference with business as of July 16, 2012 by Defendant A) and the former part of Article 37 of the Criminal Act, was reversed and remanded to this court, and all of the remaining appeals by the prosecutor were dismissed.