All appeals filed by the prosecutor against the Defendants are dismissed.

1. The gist of the grounds for appeal is as follows: (a) the prosecutor appealeds the entire judgment of the court below; and (b) on March 10, 2016, on the grounds of appeal, “misunderstanding of legal principles and unfair sentencing” on the grounds of appeal; (c) however, the court of the first instance stated in the court of the trial that “it does not assert unjust sentencing as to the part concerning the crime of intrusion upon residence of Defendant A, which was convicted by the court of the court below; and (d) the prosecutor’s assertion that the part concerning the charge of intrusion upon residence of the defendant A, which was found guilty, is erroneous in the misapprehension of facts and misunderstanding of legal principles, and thus, the Defendants’ punishment should be determined by

- It is difficult to see the Defendants’ act as “the passive resistance to protect themselves from an unlawful attack” and even though it is difficult to see that the Defendants’ act satisfies the requirements of urgency or supplement among the elements for establishing the so-called “political act”, the lower court determined that the Defendants’ act is deemed as “the passive resistance act” and thus, it is reasonable to view it as “the act that is reasonable to allow under the social norms.” Thus, the lower court erred by misapprehending the legal doctrine on the legitimate act or by misapprehending the legal doctrine.

2. In light of the records, a thorough examination of the evidence duly adopted and investigated by the court below in light of the records, it is reasonable to find the Defendants not guilty of this part of the facts charged on the ground that the Defendants’ act of causing tangible power to victims E, based on the circumstances stated by the court below, constitutes an act that is reasonable to allow the victim E in light of social norms, and thus, it is reasonable to find the Defendants guilty of this part of the facts charged

Therefore, the prosecutor's above assertion is without merit.

3. In conclusion, each appeal filed by the prosecutor against the Defendants is without merit, and thus, the Criminal Procedure Act is applicable.