1. Of the judgment below, Defendant A, B, C, D, F, G, H, I, J, K, L, M, N, andO respectively.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. According to the evidence submitted by the prosecutor that violated the Punishment of Violences, etc. Act (a collective injury by deadly weapons, etc.) and the Punishment of Violences, etc. Act (a violation of the Act on October 21, 2010) against the remaining Defendants except Defendant E, the above Defendants could have sufficiently predicted the act of violence or destruction and damage that may occur during the factory occupation, but did not go at the factory occupation, there was an implicit public offering and functional control over the act of injury and destruction during the factory occupation. Nevertheless, the lower court erred in matters of law by misapprehending the facts, thereby affecting the conclusion of the judgment. According to the evidence submitted by the prosecutor, the lower court erred in misapprehending the above part of the charges, which affected the conclusion of the judgment, and in so doing, the lower court erred by misapprehending the fact that the Defendants did not have any functional influence on the act of injury and destruction of the factory occupation process, and in so doing, the Defendants did not have any error in the misapprehension of the sentence of imprisonment with prison labor for up to six years (a collective injury or destruction of deadly weapons, etc.).

B. Defendants 1 mistake or mistake of facts.