All appeals by the Defendants and the Prosecutor against Defendant A, C, D, F, and Q are dismissed.

Summary of Grounds for Appeal

Defendants A, B, and F’s violation of the Punishment of Violence, etc. Act (joint assault 1-A of March 25, 2016 in the original judgment) (this part of the Defendants’ joint assault 1-A of March 25, 2016) constitutes legitimate self-defense as an act to help the victims of AD Trade Union and North Korea branch (hereinafter “this case’s Trade Union and Labor Relations”) interfere with an assembly where the victims of AD Trade Union and Labor Relations Union and North Korea branch (hereinafter “this case’s Trade Union and Labor Relations”) lawfully proceeded, and assaults and flees the president of the Trade Union and Labor Relations Council in the assembly.

Defendant

A and B- April 7, 2016 violation of the Assembly and Demonstration Act (the criminal facts of the first instance judgment) (Article 2-3(c) of the first instance judgment) The Defendants requested an interview to AA(hereinafter “A”) and attempted to visit regardless of the progress of the assembly on the same day.

Defendant

A and B- May 5, 2016, May 6, 2016, May 13, 2016, May 13, 2016, and May 16, 2016, each business interference (Article 3, 4, 6, and 7 of the original facts charged in the judgment) was committed by the Defendants at an assembly lawfully reported, and the Defendants did not interfere with the business of the victims A.

Defendant

B and D’s violation of the Punishment of Violences, etc. Act (joint intimidation) (Article 5 of the Criminal Act No. 2016Da166 of the facts stated in the original judgment) (Article 2016Da166 of the facts constituting the crime of this case) is merely an executive officer of the Trade Union and Labor of this case who explained, before an interview with the victim AJ at the scene of AA, the Defendants did not pose a threat to the warden at the site.

There was no intention of intimidation against the Defendants, and the above site chief or AA did not file a complaint against the Defendants.

Defendant

The Defendant’s interference with the business of Q on May 13, 2016 (Article 6 of the Criminal Act No. 2016 High Court Decision 2016Gohap166) did not interfere with AA’s business because it was one person’s demonstration against unfair dismissal regardless of the assembly of the Trade Union in this case.

Defendant

A, C-.