(b) Violation of the Act on Punishment of Violence, Etc. (Inflictingment of Group, Deadly Weapons, etc.);

(c) Violation of the Act on Punishment of Violence, Etc. (the registration of a group or a deadly weapon;

Water damage, etc.)

(d) Violation of the Act on Punishment of Violence, Etc. (a group, deadly weapon, etc.);

o. Intrusion)

(e) interference with general traffic;

F. Violation of the Assembly and Demonstration Act

(g) interference with the performance of official duties;

(h) Fire prevention of general goods;

agency.

Daejeon

Criteria for registration, Chungcheongbuk-do

2. A, B, C, D, E, F, G, H.

A person shall be appointed.

Daejeon

Criteria for registration, Chungcheongnam-nam

3. A, B, C, D, E, F, H.

Kim ○

Daejeon

The number of prison inmates

Criteria for registration, Chungcheongnam-nam

4. A, B, C, D, E, F, H.

A person shall be appointed.

Residence

Standard City of Registration and Gwangju City

5. A, B, C, D, E, F, H.

Yellowel

Residence Chungcheongnam-Nam

Based on the criteria for registration, Daejeon

6. A, B, C, D, E, F, H.

A person shall be appointed.

Daejeon

The standard of registration shall be

all appeals shall be dismissed.

As to Defendant Kim ○○ and Gabling, 135 days out of the number of days of detention after the appeal shall be included in the principal sentence.

1. As to No. 1, the original judgment on the ground that Defendant’s proposal could have been predicted to commit an act of violence against fire-fighting, as alleged in the grounds of appeal, there is no illegality in violation of the evidence-based rules as alleged in the grounds of appeal. Thus, the grounds of appeal to the purport that the judgment of the court below, which is a fact-finding court, is erroneous in recognizing the facts belonging to the exclusive authority of the court below, or that the judgment of the court below, which is contrary to the facts acknowledged by the court below, was erroneous in the misapprehension of the legal principles as to the joint principal offender, cannot be accepted.

2. According to the evidence in the judgment of the court below as to the first instance court No. 2, it is acknowledged that the arrest warrant was issued at the time of the arrest of the defendant Kim Kim -, the summary of the facts of the crime, the right to appoint a defense counsel, and the opportunity for defense at the time of the arrest of the defendant Kim -. The judgment of the court below did not err by misapprehending the legal principles as to the elements for the obstruction of performance of official duties, as alleged in the grounds for appeal by the defendant Kim Kim Kim -, which is the fact-finding court. Accordingly, the appeal to the effect that the court below erred by misapprehending the legal principles as to the acknowledgement of facts belonging to the exclusive authority of the court below which is the fact-finding court, or by misapprehending the legal principles as to the elements for the obstruction of performance of official duties, on the premise of the fact-finding which is different from the facts admitted by the court below.

3. According to the evidence in the judgment of the original court as to No. 3, even though it was possible to have sufficiently predicted that a fire-fighting based on circulars was followed during the process of the assembly of this case, the fact that the Defendant was not taking reasonable measures to prevent it. The Defendant’s appeal by the above Defendant’s ground of appeal cannot be accepted, for the purport that it caused the misunderstanding of the fact that falls under the exclusive authority of the lower court, which is the fact-finding court.

As to the judgment of the court of first instance, Defendant Kim Jong-chul was unable to file an appeal only on the ground of misconception of the facts as to the interference with the performance of official duties and the imposition of sentencing, and it was evident in the record that Defendant Kim Kim 00, Jung-sik was unable to file an appeal only on the ground that the judgment of first instance was unfair on the grounds of sentencing. As to the judgment of first instance, it cannot be said that the judgment of the court of first instance that partially admitted it was erroneous on the grounds of misconception of facts due to a violation of the rules of evidence, or on the grounds of a violation of the statutes, as to the fire-fighting part as to the fire-fighting part of the above Defendant, and thus, this cannot be a legitimate ground for appeal.

4. According to the provisions of Article 383 (4) of the Criminal Procedure Act as to No. 4, an appeal against the judgment of death penalty, imprisonment with prison labor for life or for not less than 10 years, or imprisonment without prison labor, is allowed only for the reason that the sentencing was unfair. Thus, the ground that the judgment of the punishment was unfair in the case of this case, which was sentenced to a more minor punishment, cannot be a legitimate ground for appeal.

5. Conclusion

Therefore, all appeals shall be dismissed, and with respect to Defendant Kim ○ and Park Park, 135 days of detention days after the appeal shall be included in the principal sentence, and it is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating judges.

Justices Kim Hwang-sik

Justices Lee Hong-hoon

Justices Ahn Dai-hee