The Defendants’ appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. misunderstanding of facts or misapprehension of legal principles 1) Defendant B prepared a written statement of the draft resolution on the victim’s expulsion to the effect that it was difficult for the victim Nonparty B to have a high doubt about the victim E, and that it was not punished due to lack of physical evidence, and that Defendant B did not indicate any false fact as a true fact.

2) Defendant A did not indicate the false facts about the victim together with Defendant B.

3) Even if the Defendants stated false facts, there were reasonable grounds for the Defendants to believe that, from the standpoint of the Defendants, it was difficult for the Defendants to find it difficult for the Defendants, and the Defendants’ act as described in the facts charged was for the benefit of the organization, and thus, the illegality is excluded in accordance with Article 310 of the Criminal Act.

B. The sentence that the lower court sentenced the Defendants (a fine of three million won is imposed on each of the Defendants) is too unreasonable.

2. Judgment on the misapprehension of the legal principle or mistake of facts

A. The following facts are acknowledged in full view of the evidence duly admitted and examined by the court below and the court below.

1) The Defendants and the victims are members of the D branch of the D branch of the D branch (hereinafter “A branch of the D branch”). Defendant A was the vice-chairperson of the D branch of the D branch, Defendant B was the general affairs of the Defendant, and the victim from February 2012 to February 2014.

2) 피해자와 O은 2015. 1. 15. 경기 가평군 두 밀리 샛두 밀 골짜기 부근에서 사냥개를 데리고 야생동물을 잡고 있는 사람이 있다는 신고를 받고 출동한 경찰관, 밀렵 단속반에게 적발되었다.

The victim and theO did not have been punished for hard conduct because of the discovery of the trace of illegal matches in the vicinity of the match. However, the O was in possession of a knife knife 13.5 cm in length, and was charged with violating the Control Act such as guns, swords, explosives, etc. (the prosecutor was in the case No. 7093, Feb. 6, 2015, the prosecutor was in charge of violation of the Control Act such as guns, swords, explosives, etc.).