The judgment below

Defendant B, C, F, G, H, I, B,J, K, L, M, M, N, P, Q, Q, R, S, T, U, V, M, Z, AD, AF, AF, AH, AH, AI, AJ, and AL.

1. In light of the summary of the grounds for appeal in this case’s sentencing conditions, the following punishment against the Defendants of the lower court is too unreasonable.

Each fine of 3 million won: KRW 1.5 million for each fine of 1.2 million won by Defendant D, E, U, Y, AM, AZ, BH, BK, BL, Q, BS, and BT (total 12 persons): Defendant A, C, F, G, G, H, I, B,J, L,W, M, M, N, P, P, Q, T, T, M, V, Z, M, AA, AB, AB, AB, AC, AD, AE, AE, AE, AE, AF, AH, AJ, AL, AL, AP, AP, AP, ATR, AB, ATS, BG, BM, BM, BM, B5, BM, B5, B5, B0 (total).

2. The crime of this case was committed by the Defendants, who were the believerss of the religious organizations in the Y BX, designated as the “BZ” district, and the Defendants participated in the opposing assemblies held in the front playgrounds of the government office building located in the 2,500 Sincheon-si, and the Minister of Land, Transport and Maritime Affairs demanded an interview with the Minister of Land, Transport and Maritime Affairs on the ground that the government office located in the 2000 Sincheon-si, and attempted to enter the building by using physical power on the ground that the Defendants did not receive the demand of the BX religious organizations from the relevant departments, such as the Ministry of Land, Transport and Maritime Affairs, and the place of crime was an integrated government office in charge of tracking the State administrative function, and there is a need for the Defendants’ actions to punish the Defendants on the grounds that the Defendants’ actions caused the injury by breaking the police officers who properly prevented the Defendants from entering the crime.

On the other hand, all the Defendants were erroneous and contradictory, and the Defendants did not possess any special dangerous tool at the time of committing the instant crime, and in light of the circumstances and timing during which they attempted to enter the office building, it cannot be deemed that the instant crime was committed in a planned manner. The instant crime itself began around 08:00 on the date of the instant case and was avoided by the arrest of most of the Defendants around 08:30 on the date of the instant case at around 08:30 on the date of the instant crime, etc., which can be commonly considered by all the Defendants.

. The above.