The judgment below

Part concerning Defendant A and B (not guilty part of the grounds)

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal (misunderstanding of legal principles as to the part not guilty and misunderstanding of facts);

A. As to the violation of the Act on the Assembly and Demonstration against Defendant A and B, V is merely the name of the organization’s representative in the name of the report of assembly only formally. Since the Defendants planned the date, time, place, and method of assembly, and directly led the assembly, they constitute the organizer of the instant assembly.

Nevertheless, the judgment of the court below which acquitted this part of the facts charged is erroneous in the misapprehension of legal principles.

B. In light of the fact that Defendant A and B conspired with Defendant A and its members, including Defendant C, for the part that the Defendants damaged the pents by the hack pipe among the violations of the Punishment of Violences, etc. Act (joint property damage, etc.) against the Defendants, and offered violent demonstration by dividing them into the Kakao Stockholm conversation, “I”, “I do not have a frame,” and Defendant A’s instructions began to attach the pents by the hack pipe, etc., Defendant A and B can also be acknowledged as having publicly offered and executed the parts that were damaged by the hack pipe.

Nevertheless, the judgment of the court below which acquitted the defendant on this part of the facts charged is erroneous as a matter of law.

2. Determination

A. Determination as to the violation of the Assembly and Demonstration Act with respect to Defendant A and B 1) The summary of this part of the facts charged is that Defendant A and Defendant B are the head of the education and safety division of the public-private labor union E-Tin branch, Defendant B’s head of the F branch branch of the above branch, and Defendant B’s head of the above branch G branch of the G branch of the above branch. Defendant B demanded the J, the head of the new construction site site site, “Itel Co., Ltd., Ltd., in the construction site of H around October 2015.” However, Defendant A and Defendant B were urged the victim company to accept the above demand.