All appeals by the Defendants are dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. As to the Defendants (1) of the lower judgment’s violation of the Assembly and Demonstration Act, the Defendants did not have attempted to enter the office building of the Gyeongnam-do Office of Education, and even though the place of assembly report was not the place of assembly report, it was peaceful meetings at the Gyeongnam-do Office of Education before the Gyeongnam-do Office of Education, and thus, it did not have a high punishment. However, the lower court found the Defendants guilty of this part of the facts charged, so it erred by misapprehending the facts or by misapprehending the legal doctrine, which affected the conclusion of the judgment.

(B) As to the violation of the Assembly and Demonstration Act, among the judgment below, the defendants received the report on an outdoor assembly as of December 3, 201, stating the place where the assembly was held by the Gyeong-nam Provincial Council, through N, and the police officer U.S., upon receipt of the report, received the report on the outdoor assembly without directly eliminating this part of the report, and the defendants received the report on the outdoor assembly as stated in the original report, without gathering the fact that the Gyeong-nam Provincial Council was removed from the place where the assembly was held. Since the defendants did not intentionally commit a violation of the Assembly and Demonstration Act, or did not constitute a violation of the Assembly and Demonstration Act, the court below found the defendants guilty of this part of the facts charged, and there is an error of law by misunderstanding the facts or by misapprehending the legal principles, which affected the conclusion of the judgment.

(2) As to the obstruction of performance of official duties and injury against Defendant B (A) of the lower judgment, the lower court did not err by misapprehending the body of the physically handicapped person who is unable to freely use the body, and did not have the face of the victim F, G, or food with the light of his/her own wheel chairs, while the lower court did not have the face of the victim G.