All appeals by the Defendants are dismissed.

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal (e.g., imprisonment) by the lower court against the Defendants (a fine of KRW 500,000) is too unreasonable.

2. The judgment of this case is the case where the defendants jointly replaced the correction device of the G Association office located in Seoul F, at will, or damaged the steel company and its net indirect attachment, and the defendants led to the destruction of the correction device owned by the G Association over two occasions. The defendants led to the confession of the crime of this case. Defendants A was the first offender, Defendant A was punished once, and Defendant C was only four times of fine. However, the special general meeting that dismissed H on December 3, 201 and appointed Defendant A as an acting agent for the president of the Association was held on December 15, 201, and the special general meeting that appointed Defendant A as an acting agent for the president of the Association was held on December 15, 201, and the Seoul Central District Court applied for the suspension of the performance of duties on the 19th day of the same month and then arbitrarily replaced the correction device of the G Association office office on the 19th day of the same month before the decision was made. Defendant A, as an acting agent for the president of the Association, applied for the Seoul Central District Court Decision No. 223124.

3.2. In light of the fact that the corrective devices of the above partnership office have been damaged, the lower court already reduced the fine amount under the summary order to 1/2 by taking account of the favorable circumstances favorable to the Defendants, and all other factors of sentencing as shown in the records and arguments of this case, including the Defendants’ age, character and conduct, criminal records, motive and circumstances leading to the instant crime, and circumstances after the crime, etc., the sentence imposed by the lower court against the Defendants is unreasonable.

3. In conclusion, the defendants' appeal is dismissed in accordance with Article 364 (4) of the Criminal Procedure Act, since all of the appeals are without merit.