The judgment below

Among them, the guilty part against Defendant A and C and Defendant B shall be reversed, respectively.

Defendant

A.

Summary of Grounds for Appeal

Defendant

In light of the facts charged in this case, the defendants of H, I, M, K misunderstanding of facts, and misapprehension of legal principles, there is a question that there was no separate treatment for the crime of injury resulting from a special obstruction of performance of official duties under Article 12 in the judgment of the court below. In light of the fact that it was difficult for the participants at the time to find out the persons who used each item or enormous machinery, there was a minor conflict with the police. In addition, it is difficult for the defendants to anticipate the act of assault under each item of certain participants, and the defendants did not participate in the systematic violence, such as harming each item to the police, and therefore, the defendants did not participate in the systematic violence. Thus, the court below erred by misapprehending the legal principles as to the co-principal of the crime of injury resulting from a special obstruction of official duties, or by misapprehending the legal principles as to the co-principal of the crime of causing a obstruction of official duties.

The lower court’s sentence against the Defendants on unreasonable sentencing (two years of suspended sentence in June of each year) is too unreasonable.

The sentence of the remaining Defendants is too unreasonable because the sentence of the court below is too unreasonable.

The prosecutor (the defendant B) found the defendant B not guilty of interfering with the victim's business by force on December 29, 2010 on December 29, 2010. This is unfair because the court below erred by misapprehending the legal principles on the crime of interference with business or misunderstanding the facts.

The sentence of the court below against the defendant (one year and six months of imprisonment, a fine of 300,000 won, and two years of suspended execution) is too unhued and unreasonable.

B. Before the judgment of the prosecutor's ex officio on the grounds for appeal against the defendant B by the prosecutor's ex officio, the court below deemed that the above defendant committed the crime of interference with business under paragraph (10) at the time of original adjudication, and decided to punish the above defendant with prison labor for the crime, and the remaining crimes of the above defendant were punished with prison labor for the crime under paragraph (10) at the time of original adjudication.