All parts, excluding the dismissed part of the prosecution against Defendant A, shall be reversed.

Defendant .

A. As to Defendant B’s violation of the Assembly and Demonstration Act among the facts charged in this case’s misconception of facts and assertion of unfair sentencing, even though Defendant B did not fall under “an act clearly deviating from the scope of the reported place,” as provided by Article 16(4)3 of the Assembly and Demonstration Act, it did not constitute “an act clearly deviating from the scope of the reported place” as provided by Article 16(4)3 of the Assembly and Demonstration Act, the judgment of the court below which found Defendant B guilty of this part of the facts charged is erroneous in the misapprehension of facts, which affected the conclusion of the judgment. Even if the family judgment differs, the sentence of fine of one million won imposed on Defendant B is too unreasonable.

B. As to the defamation against Defendant C among the facts charged in the instant case, Defendant C’s assertion of mistake of facts or misapprehension of legal principles, and the assertion of unreasonable sentencing, it is based on the fact that Defendant C told that “at the time of the instant case, Defendant C demanded rebates from the construction company during the 2009 pipeline construction,” and thus, it cannot be deemed false. This is not only true facts, but also related to the public interest of the occupants of Busan Jin-gu Busan (hereinafter “the instant apartment”). Thus, Defendant C’s speaking in the instant case is dismissed from illegality under Article 310 of the Criminal Act.

Nevertheless, the judgment of the court below which found Defendant C guilty of this part of the facts charged is erroneous by misunderstanding the facts or by misapprehending the legal principles, which affected the conclusion of the judgment. Even if the family judgment differs, the punishment for four months sentenced to Defendant C is too unreasonable.

C. As to Defendant D’s mistake of facts or misapprehension of legal principles, and assault against Defendant D among the facts charged in the instant case claiming unfair sentencing, Defendant D was guilty of this part of the facts charged, without having used Defendant D’s chest at the time of the instant case as his head.