All appeals by the Defendants are dismissed.

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal reveals that the Defendants damaged the free trade interests owned by the victim and the wooden bees, etc. (hereinafter “free trade interests”) but the Defendants damaged the free trade interests owned by the victim, but ① the damaged glass is collectively owned by the members including the Defendants, and thus the Defendants damaged

the property of another person; and

The court below found the defendant guilty of the facts charged of this case in the absence of illegality as a legitimate defense or self-help act, since the education officer, including the defendants, who was actually in possession of some of the members, secedes from the education officer, and was damaged property in the course of entering the education center to prevent the theft of inside the inside of the education center.

2. The court below duly adopted and examined the evidence, i.e., the following circumstances that are acknowledged by comprehensively taking account of the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court below, i.e., (1) the Defendants: (a) destroyed the goods free of any dangerous object, such as each item and error; (2) the goods damaged by the Defendants are the total sum of the members of the G church; (c) the G church belongs to a number of members other than the Defendants; and (c) there is a concern over the risk of causing harm to the life and body of others, as the goods distributed out and out of the education center in the process of destroying the glass, etc.; and (4) the situation at the time of the commission of the instant

In light of the fact that it is difficult to see that some of the members who actually carried out towing in the education hall, as shown by the Defendants, left the education hall to the opposing members, and then accepted a provisional disposition of prohibition of interference such as towing and filing a petition against the opposing pastor, etc., and it seems that the education hall is ordinarily reported, the defendants conspired to do so as stated in the judgment of the court below.