The judgment of the court below is reversed.

Defendant

A A Fines of 4,00,000 won, Defendant B and C of each fine of 2,00,000,000 won, and Defendant.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. The prosecutor 1) misunderstanding of facts and misunderstanding of legal principles (as to obstruction of business on January 4, 201 with respect to Defendant A and D in the judgment of the court below), the evidence submitted by the prosecutor reveals that Defendant A and D interfered with the victim’s business by force, such as blocking the entrance at the time of the crime, is sufficiently recognized, which goes beyond the limit permitted by social norms, and thus does not constitute a justifiable act. Nevertheless, the judgment of the court below which acquitted the Defendants of this part of the facts charged is erroneous in the misapprehension of facts and misunderstanding of legal principles as to a justifiable act (as to the whole of the Defendants, there is an error of law by misunderstanding of facts and misunderstanding of legal principles as to an unfair sentencing (as to the whole of the Defendants: 1 million won, Defendant B, and Defendant D’s imprisonment with prison labor for four years, and 1.5 million won, respectively).

B. The Defendants’ written opinions, etc. submitted after the lapse of the period for appeal is considered only to the extent of supplement in case of supplemental appellate briefs not timely filed.

1) Defendant A: With regard to the fact of interference with the business on October 8, 2010, Defendant A was only a fact that there was no entry in the meeting room, and that there was no resistance outside the meeting room.

Nevertheless, the lower court erred by misapprehending the legal doctrine and thereby adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment, which affected the conclusion of the judgment.

B) Defendant D: In relation to the point of damage, Defendant D’s act ought to be deemed as self-defense to restrain the act of the victim S since Defendant D was able to take advantage of the victim S’s glass once, but the glass was not true, and since the victim S driving the vehicle to the members of the Plaintiff who used the banner, the above act of the Defendant should also be deemed as self-defense to prevent the act of the victim S. In addition, with respect to the obstruction of business as of January 14, 201, Defendant D’s act was committed by H (hereinafter “State”).

Since the entrance door door was opened and shut down, it did not prevent the entrance of the vehicle.