1. Of the judgment below, Defendant A, B, C, D, F, G, H, H, K, K, L, M, M, N, P, Q, Q, Q, S, T, U, V, X, Y, Z, AAB, AB, AD, AD, AE, AE, or AF.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. According to the evidence submitted by the prosecutor of the violation of the Punishment of Violences, etc. A (collective injury, deadly weapons, etc.) by each of the remaining Defendants other than Defendant E and I, and the violation of the Act on Punishment of Violences, etc. (collective injury, etc.) on October 21, 2010, the above Defendants could have sufficiently predicted the act of violence or destruction that may occur in the process of factory occupancy, and it was allowed to do so, and there was an implicit conspiracy and functional control over the act of inflicting injury or destruction during factory occupancy. Nevertheless, the lower court acquitted the Defendants of this part of the charges, and erred by misapprehending the facts, which affected the conclusion of the judgment. According to the evidence submitted by the prosecutor of the judgment, the lower court erred by misapprehending the facts, which affected the conclusion of the judgment, and by failing to exhaust all of the judgment of the lower court as to the Defendants, Defendant 2, who did not have any functional influence on the act of causing damage or destruction of a factory.