The judgment of the first instance shall be reversed.

Defendant

C. The sentence for a penalty against C, F shall be suspended, respectively.

Defendant

B, D, E, and A.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Defendants: misunderstanding of facts as to interference with each of their duties (the Defendants B, D, and C reported an outdoor assembly to the competent police station prior to the emergency board of directors; the Defendants’ act did not interfere with the progress of the instant emergency board of directors due to noise to the extent of large or large sized sized scales, etc. at the first floor parking lot of the victim’s association building; Defendant E, F, and A did not take a desire for other directors or did not participate in physical fighting as stated in the facts charged; and the instant emergency board of directors did not interfere with the instant crime of interference with the business among the directors present at the meeting, but did not interfere with the meeting due to the Defendants’ act; therefore, the Defendants’ act does not constitute a force to interfere with the holding of the board of directors of the victim association; and there is no substantial causal relationship between the Defendants’ act and the result of interference with the holding of the board of directors’ meeting) and unfair sentencing.

Defendant

B and D: Error of facts as to each common property damage (the defendant B did not impair the utility of CCTV by reducing CCTV lines, and the ballot boxes taken by the defendant D were made in an abnormal form and do not constitute the objects of the crime of destruction because they were not economically valuable objects).

Defendant

A: Error of facts as to the damage of property (the defendant A did not destroy it due to the misunderstanding of the statement of intention or the breaking of a name tag on the floor by breaking it.). D.

Defendant

F. F and A: The emergency board of directors in this case did not meet the substantive and procedural requirements such as the convening method of the day immediately preceding the day, the agenda items different from the prior notice, the control of access to conference rooms by service personnel through text messages, etc., and the above defendants are resisted at the meeting of the emergency board of directors in such unlawful manner.