All appeals by the Defendants are dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Regarding Defendant A (1) misunderstanding of facts or misunderstanding of legal principles, Defendant A received written statements from each of the victims, but was not received through fact or assault or intimidation, the lower court accepted the facts charged and sentenced Defendant guilty. In so doing, the lower court erred by misapprehending the legal doctrine, thereby adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment.

(2) The sentence imposed by the lower court on Defendant A (two years of suspended sentence for one year of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

B. In relation to Defendant B, C, and D(1)’s joint injury, Defendant B, C, and D had been at the site at the time, but did not assault the victims, the lower court accepted the facts charged and sentenced Defendant guilty. In so doing, the lower court erred by misapprehending the legal doctrine, or by misapprehending the legal doctrine, which affected the conclusion of the judgment.

(2) The sentence imposed by the lower court on Defendant B, C, and D (a fine of KRW 500,000) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. Regarding the assertion of mistake of facts or misapprehension of legal principles regarding the 3rd public conflict at the time of Defendant A’s original adjudication, intimidation refers to the notification of harm and injury likely to be frighten to the extent that it limits the freedom of decision-making or the freedom of decision-making, and it is sufficient if the notification of harm and injury does not necessarily require the method of specification, and has the perception that it would cause harm and injury to the other party by language or fright, and even if it is used as a means of realizing legitimate right, it is sufficient that the method of realizing the right goes beyond the permissible extent and the method of realizing the right goes beyond the permissible extent by social norms. This is what is the case.