All appeals by the Defendants are dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Defendant A (misunderstanding of facts)’s act of preventing the instant farm road from becoming a hacker, and Defendant A did not participate in the act independently by Defendant B.

Therefore, Defendant A conspired with Defendant B to commit each of the crimes of this case.

shall not be deemed to exist.

B. Defendants 1 and misunderstanding of the legal principles) The instant farm road is not a common land for the traffic of the general public, but a road for which only owners of land adjacent to the farm road can pass through because it is limited to the private land of owners of land adjacent to the farm road.

Therefore, the Defendants closed the instant farm road.

Even if general traffic obstruction is not established, it shall not be established.

B) The Defendant’s work of building livestock penss on the land owned by the victim through the instant farm road ought to be conducted through consultation with the Defendants, including the Defendants, and the owners of the instant farming road and adjacent land. The victim attempted to pass through the instant farm road without going through such a process, and to build the said livestock shed without permission. The closing of the instant farm road by the Defendants is a exercise of rights based on legitimate ownership, and thus, it cannot be deemed that the crime of interference with business is established.

2) Even if the judgment of the court below is found guilty against the defendants of unfair domestic affairs, the sentence of the court below (the fine of one million won, the fine of two million won, and the fine of two million won) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. Determination as to Defendant A’s assertion (Article 1. 1. (a) 1 of the above), the conspiracy, which is a subjective element of the joint principal offender, is sufficient if there is a combination of intent to jointly commit a crime between accomplices. As long as such conspiracy was conducted, Defendant A is held liable for the other accomplices’ act even if not involved in the conduct (see Supreme Court Decision 91Do1755, Oct. 11, 1991, etc.). Based on the above legal doctrine, the following circumstances, namely, that are acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and investigated by the court below.