All appeals filed by prosecutors and defendants are dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. (1) The Defendants, by misapprehending the legal principles, did not hold an assembly only because they engaged in gathering incidental to the press dog, but the first instance court erred by misapprehending the legal principles on the concept of assembly, thereby adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment.

【The first instance sentencing of the Defendants on the grounds of unfair sentencing (one million won by each fine) is too unreasonable.

B. Considering the nature of the crime of this case and the possibility of recidivism by the Defendants in light of the same force of the prosecutor (unfairness) in light of the Defendants, the sentencing of the first instance court on the Defendants is too uneasible.

2. Determination

A. As to the assertion of misapprehension of legal principles, the Defendants and the defense counsel of the first instance court asserted the same purport as the above grounds for appeal, and the first instance court rejected the above assertion by stating in detail the judgment on the grounds of the judgment “determination on the grounds of the defendant and his defense counsel” (hereinafter “determination on the assertion of the defendant and his defense counsel”). If the judgment of the first instance is compared with the records in light of the relevant legal principles, the judgment of the first instance is just, and it is not erroneous in the misapprehension of legal principles as to the concept of assembly, which affected the conclusion of the judgment.

B. In full view of the details and motive leading up to the instant case, the Defendants’ act of holding each assembly, the purpose and scale of each assembly, the fact that the Defendants had the same force on the Defendants, and other various circumstances that form the conditions for sentencing as indicated in the records, such as the Defendants’ age, character and conduct, environment, and circumstances after the commission of the crime, the sentencing of the first instance court on the Defendants cannot be deemed to be proper, too weak or unreasonable, and thus, the Defendants and the prosecutor’s assertion of unfair sentencing is without merit.

3. If so, both the prosecutor and the Defendants’ appeal are justified.