폭력행위등처벌에관한법률위반(단체등의구성ㆍ활동)
The judgment below
Of them, the part on Defendant B shall be reversed.
Defendant
B A person shall be punished by imprisonment for four years.
Defendant
A and.
1. Summary of grounds for appeal;
A. Defendant A1) misunderstanding of facts or misunderstanding of legal principles and statements made by the court below in the investigation agency by the testimony of the court below and the testimony made by the court below as evidence of guilt are not Voluntary since they were made in accordance with the demands and pressure of the prosecutor's reduction of punishment against those who were in a state of being unable to be subject to heavy punishment due to their criminal cases, and the same family name statement was used as multiple provisional names, and the investigation of the family name statement was conducted after the prosecution, and the examination was conducted after the witness examination of the family name statement was conducted after the witness examination was installed, and the cross-examination was in essence infringed upon the right to cross-examination. Defendant A is not admissible as evidence. Defendant A is not the leader of J, and there was no attempt or instruction to gather or guide the harmful act against Q heading and action ledger. Nevertheless, the court below erred by misunderstanding of facts as to the violation of the Punishment of Violences, etc. Act (Composition and activities of organization, etc.) due to the harmful act against Qing R, etc. and affecting the conclusion of the judgment.
B. Defendant B 1 mistake of facts and misapprehension of legal principles ① The oral statement of the court below and the statement of the investigative agency made by the court below as evidence of guilt were made in accordance with the demands and pressure of the prosecutor’s reduction of punishment against those who were in a state of being unable to be subject to heavy punishment due to their criminal cases, and there was no voluntariness, and the same family name reporter used multiple provisional names, and the investigation was conducted on the family name reporter after the prosecution, and the examination was conducted after the examination of the family name reporter installed with the front cover facility and the right of cross-examination was essentially infringed.