All appeals by the Defendants are dismissed.

1. Summary of the Defendants’ grounds for appeal

A. The court below found the Defendants guilty of the facts constituting the crime in its holding, although the Defendants entered the first floor underground store in H document stores as stated in the judgment of the court below at the time and place indicated in the judgment of the court below (the crime No. 2 of the Defendant’s holding that business obstruction was caused by mistake of facts or misapprehension of the legal principles (the crime of this case). However, even though the Defendants entered the store to purchase goods and did not intend to interfere with the store management business of the victim J.

The violation of the Assembly and Demonstration Act (Defendant B) did not hold an outdoor assembly in collaboration with Defendant B or a mixed person, without reporting as stated in the judgment of the court below, at each of the dates and places indicated in the judgment of the court below. However, even though the court held a cultural task to screen video works, etc. to inform the group of non-regular workers of J-regular workers, the court below found the defendant guilty of each of the criminal facts stated in the judgment of the court below. The court below erred by misapprehending the facts of the assembly and Demonstration Act (hereinafter referred to as the "Act") or by misapprehending the legal principles, which affected the conclusion of the judgment.

B. In light of the fact that the Defendants’ assertion of unfair sentencing was committed against each of the instant crimes in order to inform the illegality of the collective dismissal of non-regular workers in J, a company, there are extenuating circumstances to consider the circumstances, and Defendant C and D merely attended an assembly organized by the Democratic Labor-Management Republic of Korea Headquarters in Busan, the lower court’s respective sentence against the Defendants (Defendant B: fine of KRW 5 million, Defendant C, and Defendant D: one million each fine) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. As to the assertion of mistake of facts or misapprehension of legal principles, the court below legitimately adopted and investigated the charge of obstruction of business (the crime No. 2 of the defendant's decision).