The judgment below

Of them, the part against Defendant A shall be reversed.

Defendant

A shall be punished by imprisonment with prison labor for a year and six months.

(b).

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Defendants A (U.S.) and A (U.S. 1 and June) sentenced by the lower court are too unreasonable and unfair. (2) Defendant B) misunderstanding of facts did not intend to obstruct the attendance of the victims’ witnesses and to spread public opinion that the victims did not know I. Therefore, all of the facts of the lower judgment are different from the facts. (B) The sentence (one year and six months of imprisonment) sentenced by the lower court on unreasonable sentencing is too unreasonable.

3) Information on the real name and schedule of examination of a witness offered by Defendant C (Definite and misunderstanding of legal principles) was not classified as a public duty, and there was no intention to divulge a public duty secret. B. The sentence imposed by the lower court on the Defendants (Defendant C: the sentence imposed by the suspended sentence is too unfinite and unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. In light of the following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court below as to Defendant B’s assertion of mistake of facts, that is, the Defendant repeatedly posted the victims’ real name and schedule of examination of witness on the video room 10 times as the operator of the Fcul new Eculsium in which 120 persons of Eculs participate, and among them, attached the title “the list of the victims of the false statements of the trial expected statements of the public trial”, the Defendant can be recognized as having interfered with the attendance of the victims, and spread the public opinion that the victims had no choice but to the victims. Therefore, the above argument by the Defendant

B. In light of the following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court below on the grounds that Defendant C’s assertion of misunderstanding of facts and misapprehension of the legal principles on the first official duty, the victim’s real name and the schedule of examination of witness is recognized as a requirement for confidentiality in the course of official duty. Thus, this part of the Defendant’s assertion is without merit.

1. I. The member of the E church, which has 1,30,000 members, respectively.