A. misunderstanding of facts and misunderstanding of legal principles with respect to the violation of the Assembly and Demonstration Act by Defendant A’s report of the instant assembly, which was delegated by the Defendant to the Defendant, was more narrowly revised and reported (excluding two-lanes among roads) the place of assembly without authority in response to the police’s illegal demand by the Defendant. Therefore, the report of assembly excluded from two-lanes is invalid, and the assembly of this case, which was conducted on the road including two-lanes, is a legitimate assembly as it does not go beyond the scope of the place the Defendant intended by the Defendant’s intent. 2) As to the Defendants’ general traffic obstruction, Defendant C participated in the assembly after a considerable period of time.

In addition, as above 1), the assembly of this case is legitimate, and even if it was conducted differently from the report of the assembly of this case, it is merely a minor deviation, and there was no traffic obstruction due to the assembly of this case. 3) There was no intent to commit a crime of damaging the iron system against the defendants' special property damage, special building intrusion, and business obstruction.

In addition, since the Defendants planned to hold an interview with the representative director of the F Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “F”) on the day of the instant assembly, and there is a legitimate right to enter the F premises, and therefore, entry into the F premises cannot be the crime of intrusion upon the building.

In addition, the crime of interference with business is not established since the above-mentioned duties interfered with the defendants' access, which are worth protecting the X's duties.

B. Each sentence imposed by the lower court on the Defendants (Defendant A: 6 months of imprisonment, 2 years of suspended sentence, 6 months of suspended sentence, 2 years of suspended sentence, 3 years of suspended sentence, 3 months of imprisonment and 1 year of suspended sentence) are too unreasonable.

2. Judgment on misconception of facts and misapprehension of legal principles

A. Defendant A's.