All appeals by the Defendants are dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. There was no misunderstanding of facts as to the Defendants’ misunderstanding of facts as stated in the facts charged in the instant case.

B. In light of the legal principles, the Defendants were aware of the victim’s damage to the sn beamline and the earth’s sn beam board, which are their property, and did not have any intention to obstruct the victim’s business.

Even if the Defendants’ act constitutes interference with the business, it constitutes legitimate defense as an act to prevent imminent property loss.

(c)

The punishment of the court below (six months of imprisonment for each of the defendants, two years of suspended execution) is too serious.

2. Determination

A. Comprehensively taking account of the following circumstances revealed by the evidence duly adopted and investigated by the court of the lower judgment regarding the assertion of mistake of facts, the Defendants may sufficiently recognize the Defendants’ desire to and threaten H as stated in the instant facts charged.

Therefore, this part of the Defendants’ assertion is without merit.

① Defendant A consistently takes a bath from an investigative agency to the lower court’s court, and Defendant B’s bath while taking a bath, discontinued the construction work and went at the construction site as it seems that Defendant B would drink while taking a bath and drinking.

was stated.

② The J has consistently maintained from the investigative agency to the court of the court below to determine whether the Defendants and several male persons continue to perform the instant construction work.

“At the same time, she called Ha immediately and called Ha, and Ha who had arrived at the construction site after about 10 minutes, the Defendants expressed the desire for the Defendants, and in particular, Defendant B threatened the police officers to drink despite their dispatch.

was stated.

③ At the time of the instant case, the police officers sent to the site were able to take a bath to Defendant A and H, and Defendant B took an action that seems to have taken by her hand, but the police officers prevented him from taking such action.

The statements are consistent with the above statements by H and J.