The judgment of the court below is reversed.

Defendant

A and B shall be punished by fine of KRW 5,000,00, and Defendant C shall be punished by fine of KRW 3,000,00.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. The prosecutor’s sentencing of the lower court (one year of imprisonment for each of the defendants A and B, two years of suspended execution, eight months of suspended execution and two years of suspended execution) is too uneased and unreasonable.

B. The lower court’s sentencing is too unreasonable.

2. In view of the circumstances that the Defendants’ determination interfered with the victim’s business operations on several occasions on January 20, 2012, February 2, 2012, 2012; February 6, 2012; March 19, 2012; and April 10, 2012; and in particular, in the case of the crime committed on March 19, 2012, the Defendants interfered with the third party’s entry into the company after the Ulsan District Court issued a provisional disposition order to the effect that the Defendants’ entry into the company would not interfere with the third party’s passage, etc., of the victim, the Defendants’ liability for the crime is not mitigated.

However, the Defendants recognized all of the instant criminal acts, and the Defendants’ refusal of the Defendant’s labor supply in navigation unions, which had been recognized customarily for a long time, and control the entry and work of union members, led to the Defendants’ remaining criminal acts, and there are circumstances to be taken into account in the motive and circumstances, such as the Defendants’ motive and background leading up to such criminal acts. The Defendants’ efforts to proceed with a peaceful assembly by reporting the assembly in advance and requesting the union members to refrain from committing an excessive act or an act of violence. In the instant criminal act, there was no direct act of violence other than the damage of property in addition to the damage of property (as of April 10, 2012, some of the injuries occurred, but this does not appear to be an individual act of the union members, and the Defendants and union members’ organizational violence at the same level) were also intended from the beginning to commit the act of causing property damage.

In the process of entering the victim company into the victim company, the number of people seems to have occurred by contingency, and in the case of interference with the business of January 20, 2012, the victim company will be the victim company.