The judgment below

Of the above, the part concerning Defendant A shall be reversed.

Defendant

A shall be punished by a fine of 300,000 won.

Defendant

A.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. In a situation where it is impossible to proceed normally due to the fact-finding and misapprehension of legal principles, the person who is proceeding in the event only cancelled the event in an friendly manner, and the Defendants’ act does not interfere with the normal process of the event.

② Although the Defendants’ act was acknowledged in the facts constituting the crime, the noise from the Defendants’ act is within the limit of the generally accepted limit that could occur during the assembly, and it cannot be viewed as an “defensive force” of the crime of interference with business.

③ The Defendants’ act was committed with the intent to deliver their opinions on welfare policies for the disabled, and thus there was no intention to interfere with commemorative events on the Day of the Disabled.

B. The lower court’s sentence of unreasonable sentencing (a fine of KRW 300,000) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. Prior to the judgment on the argument of Defendant A due to changes in the indictment, the prosecutor added the criminal records to the purport that “one year of imprisonment with prison labor and two years of suspended execution due to special obstruction of performance of official duties, etc., and the judgment became final and conclusive on September 4, 2013,” which stated that “the latter part of Article 37 was added to the applicable provisions of the Act,” and that the latter part of Article 37 was changed to the subject of the judgment by allowing the party members to do so, the part concerning Defendant A among the judgment of the court below cannot be maintained.

However, the defendant A's assertion of misunderstanding of facts and misapprehension of legal principles is still subject to the judgment of this court, and this is examined.

B. The evidence duly adopted and examined by the lower court and the first instance court as to the Defendants’ allegation of misunderstanding of facts and misapprehension of legal principles, and in particular, the Defendants are according to the witness H’s legal statement.