A. In light of the fact-finding and the misapprehension of legal principles, at the time when the Defendants entered M religious organization N. N. (hereinafter “instant church”), the church members of the instant church were changed to Q. As such, the Defendants’ entry to the instant church to deliver worships in the status of the father of Q. The Defendants cannot be deemed to go against the will of the manager of the instant church.

In addition, the Defendants could not be aware that the resolution of the general meeting of the members that decided to move to a different religious order of the instant church was null and void, so there was no intention on the Defendants’ entering the same religious order.

B. The sentence imposed by the lower court on the Defendants (the fine of KRW 300,00,00,000 for Defendant A, D, E, and G, and the fine of KRW 800,00,00 for Defendant B, C, and F, and the fine of KRW 500,00 for Defendant H) are excessively unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. The Defendants asserted that the above mistake of facts and misapprehension of legal principles were identical to the assertion of mistake of facts and misapprehension of legal principles, and the court below rejected the above assertion by making a detailed statement on this determination. Based on the relevant legal principles, the court below's judgment is legitimate in light of the evidence duly adopted and investigated by the court below in light of the records. Thus, the above assertion by the Defendants

B. Defendant E’s judgment on the assertion of unfair sentencing does not have any other penalty power than before one fine is imposed, and the remaining Defendants do not have any criminal power, and the instant case occurred during a long-standing dispute by the division of church believers and there are some grounds for taking into account the circumstances of the relevant crime, etc. are favorable to each of the Defendants.

On the other hand, the dispute between the members who conflict due to the acts of the defendants has deteriorated more, and the defendants did not show a strong reflectivity against the crime of this case, etc., which are disadvantageous to each of the defendants.