The judgment below

Part 4 of the judgment of the court below as to Defendant B and part of the acquittal shall be reversed respectively.

Defendant

B.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. As to Defendant B 1’s misunderstanding of facts and misapprehension of legal principles, Defendant B’s destruction of special property, special residence, obstruction of business, and special injury as prescribed in Article 127 of the Criminal Act No. 127, Defendant B’s arrival at the site late after the completion of each of the above cases. As such, Defendant B did not have been at the site at the time of the occurrence of the instant case at around August 30, 2013, and there was no conspiracy to commit each of the instant crimes with other members.

B) As to the damage of special property under Article 779 of the Criminal Act No. 779 of the Highest 2016, Defendant B cannot be acknowledged solely on the ground that he did not participate in the act of destroying the special property of this case and that he was a member of another trade union affiliated with the same trade union.

2) The sentence of the lower court’s unfair sentencing (the 2-year suspended sentence for the crimes Nos. 1 and 2 of the lower judgment’s holding, the 3-year suspended sentence, and the 1-year suspended sentence for the crimes No. 4 of the lower judgment’s holding) is too unreasonable.

B. As to Defendant E (1) misunderstanding of facts and misunderstanding of legal principles 2016 high-level 779 high-level 779, Defendant E did not participate in the act of destroying the special property of this case and cannot be acknowledged solely on the ground that he was a member of a trade union affiliated with another trade union, such as other members.

2) The sentence of the lower court’s unfair sentencing (one year of suspended sentence for three months of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

(c)

The Prosecutor (Defendant B) 1) misunderstanding the facts and misunderstanding the legal principles (not guilty part) are not only arrested AY as an offender in the crime of assault against AZ, but also a crime of violation of Article 3 subparag. 19 (Creation of Uneasiness) or Article 3 subparag. 20 (Disturbance of Drinking, etc.) of the Punishment of Minor Offenses Act, including the crime of violation of Article 3 subparag. 19 (Creation of Uneasiness, etc.) or 20 (Crime of Disturbing Drinking, etc.

Therefore, Defendant B’s act of assault against a police officer who lawful performance of official duties constitutes a crime of interference with execution of official duties.

2) The lower court’s improper sentencing is too unfair.