Of the facts charged in the instant case, Defendant C, D, and E are acquitted, respectively.

1. Summary of the facts charged

A. On August 20, 2016, the Defendants were unable to undergo disciplinary proceedings against Defendant A, Defendants B, C, and Defendant D in the 19th wedding of the I church located in Gangdong-gu Seoul, Gangdong-gu, for the reason that they want to hold a trial on disciplinary action against Defendant A, Defendant B, Defendant C, Defendant D, etc. in the country of the J Union’s trial. However, even though the Defendants stated that “the victim K, L, and M pastor, etc., who is a disciplinary member of the J Union’s trial, has still come to know of time, has continued to go to go outside the court, it was difficult to avoid a large amount of 20 minutes, such as continuing to go to a wedding room, and pushing the said M.

As a result, the Defendants jointly interfered with the victims' judicial affairs of disciplinary action by force.

B. Defendant A and Defendant B committed joint crimes (Assault) on the date and place indicated in the above paragraph (a), and on the part of the victim M (67 years) entering the two arms, the victim M (67 years) was pushed down, and Defendant A used the victim’s body on board, pushed down the victim’s body, and assaulted the victim’s chest with his head.

2. Determination on the Defendants’ interference with the Defendants’ business

A. On August 20, 2016, the Defendants, the summary of the Defendants, and their defense counsel, went to the third floor of the I church, which is the place of disciplinary trial, during the designated time to attend the scheduled disciplinary judgment. The Defendants unilaterally talk to the Defendants that they would be forced to get off the first floor, and a disturbance was occurred in the course of protesting to prevent a substitute trial. As such, the Defendants did not have any intention to interfere with the disciplinary trial at the time, and did not actually interfere with the duties of disciplinary judgment.

B. In light of the following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court, the evidence submitted by the prosecutor alone, which led the Defendants to obstruct the judicial proceedings of the Labor Relations Commission’s disciplinary action, or the Defendants interfered with the aforementioned disciplinary proceedings.

It is difficult to conclude this differently, and evidence to acknowledge it.