The parts concerning Defendant E, G, H, I, and L among the judgments of the first instance court shall be reversed, respectively.

Defendant

One year of imprisonment.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. As to Defendant A and B1’s sentencing of the first instance court of unfair sentencing (the probation of Defendant A and the community service order of 200 hours in 1 year and 6 months; the probation of Defendant B and the community service order of 1 year in 1 year and 120 hours in 1 year) are too unreasonable. B. As to Defendant C, D, E, F, and H1’s misunderstanding of facts and misapprehension of legal principles, the above Defendants are service employees and victim AA Association (hereinafter “victim Association”).

(B) As to the damage of property, Defendant D did not have a cutting machine as stated in the judgment of the first instance court, Defendant F did not prepare the cutting machine to Defendant B as stated in the judgment of the first instance court, Defendant F did not have any damage to an outdoor parking lot gate gate gate gate, and CCTV gate gate of the National Federation audit room, and the above Defendants did not conspired with service employees as well as the service employees as indicated in the list of crimes in the judgment of the first instance.

C) As to obstruction of business, Defendant C, F, and H had been seated at the fourth floor room, but did not interfere with Defendant L’s business by leading Defendant L to the fourth floor room. 2) The sentencing of the first instance court of unfair sentencing (the Defendant F shall be three years of suspended execution and 120 hours of community service order, Defendant C, D, E, and H to one year of imprisonment and 120 hours of community service order) is too unreasonable.

C. As to Defendant G, I’s misunderstanding of facts), Defendant G, and I did not invite some of the members of the Victim Association to commit an act of entering the building of the Victim Association with attachment of a door door and entry of the Victim Association.

B) With respect to the damage of property, Defendant I was purchased at a nearby steel store, but the entrance door was already separated, and the above cutting machine was not used, and Defendant G and I did not conspired or participate in the act of causing property damage as stated in the first instance judgment. C).