All appeals by the Defendants are dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Defendant A and B1) The victim of the misapprehension of the legal principle is the victim E (hereinafter “instant market”).

A) The E Merchant Association (hereinafter referred to as the “Merchant Association”) is a member for the reason that the membership fee has not been paid for at least six months.

Defendant A and B, an executive officer of the merchant association, have been legally expelled, and thus, Defendant A and B, as the victim, have the right to remain in the place indicated in the facts charged (hereinafter “instant place”).

2) The lower court’s respective punishment (one million won per fine) against the Defendants on the grounds that the Defendants’ failure to engage in business constitutes a justifiable act. (2) The lower court’s respective punishment on the said Defendants is too unreasonable.

B. Defendant C1) misunderstanding of facts at the request of Defendant A, Defendant C was in temporary charge of the merchant association’s general affairs, and was neither designated as a vice-general nor attending the resolution of the merchants’ council, nor did there have been any comments on L and Defendant B to the effect that the instant place of business was unfolded. As such, there is no conspiracy relation. 2) The sentence of the lower court on unreasonable sentencing (fine 700,000 won) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. Determination of the lower court as to Defendant A and B’s assertion of misapprehension of the legal doctrine as to Defendant A and B’s grounds for appeal in the lower court. In full view of the circumstances in its holding, the lower court found Defendant A and B guilty of the instant charges against Defendant A and B on the ground that: (a) it is difficult to view that the merchants’ association has the authority to force the deprivation of the position of the market merchants in the instant case; (b) the Defendants’ expulsion of victims through a resolution of the board of directors and prevented them from doing business on the instant job by unlawful means; and (c) it cannot be deemed as a justifiable act because the reasonableness, urgency, and supplement of the means is not recognized; and (b) the lower court’s determination as to Defendant A and B cannot be deemed as a justifiable act, in addition to the circumstances properly explained by the lower court, and recognized by the evidence duly adopted by the