All appeals by the Defendants are dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. The lower court found Defendant B, G, and H guilty of this part of the facts charged on the ground that the above Defendants entered the T market room with Defendant C, etc. on the ground that they merely entered the incidental entrance, thereby recognizing functional control over this part of the facts charged. In so doing, the lower court erred by misapprehending the facts and misapprehending the legal doctrine, thereby adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment, despite the following circumstances: 2) Violation of the Punishment of Violences, etc. Act (joint residence) (hereinafter the Defendants A, B, H, and K), the lower court convicted the Defendants of this part of the facts charged; thus, the lower court erred by misapprehending the legal doctrine and adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment.

(1) The head of the office of business administration and the vice-head of the office are accessible to all officers and employees, and Defendant A, B, H, and K, an executive officer and employee of the company, can freely access the head of the office of business administration and the vice-head of the office.

② Defendant A, B, H, and K had access to the said place according to the express intent of the head of the business management office and the deputy head of the sub-head of the sub-head office and the vice-head of the sub-head office of AD.

(3) The head of the business management group, in advance, instructs NN to open the door door at the site of an old-age, so the head of the business management group explicitly permitted the entry into the old-age union while showing and observing the visit of the old-age union and the expected amount of the disturbance resulting therefrom.

B. The sentence imposed by the lower court on the Defendants (Defendant A and K: 4 months of imprisonment, one year of a suspended sentence, and the remaining Defendants: 6 months of imprisonment, one year of a suspended sentence, and one year and six months of a suspended sentence) are too unreasonable.

2. Judgment on the misunderstanding of facts and misapprehension of legal principles by the Defendants

A. Article 136 of the Criminal Act is stipulated in relation to the point of special obstruction of performance of official duties (defendant B, G, H 1).