All appeals by the Defendants are dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. The Defendants did not interfere with the performance of duties by police officers by exercising multiple force.

B. The lower court’s sentence of unfair sentencing (Defendant A: 2 years of the suspended sentence of imprisonment for 6 months; 3 million won in fines for Defendant B; and 2 years of the suspended sentence of imprisonment for 4 months; Defendant D, E, F, and G: each fine of one million won is too unreasonable).

2. Determination:

A. The crime of mistake of facts and misapprehension of legal principles is established by assaulting or threatening a public official who exhibits a group or multiple force or who performs his duties by carrying a dangerous object. Here, the term "comforcing" refers to the number of persons who have accumulated in a large number of people in the capacity to the extent that it is impossible to form an organization. The term "comforcing" means recognizing the other party the ability sufficient to suppress that person's intent, and it does not necessarily require that the other party's intention should be practically controlled. The term "Assault" includes not only the exercise of direct tangible power against the public official, but also the exercise of indirect tangible power.

According to the evidence duly admitted and investigated by the court below, the defendants can recognize the facts of assaulting police officers through multiple force, such as blocking police officers from entering the club according to the direction of the defendant A or blocking police officers from entering the club. Thus, the defendants' above assertion is without merit.

B. There is no new circumstance or change of circumstances to reflect in the sentencing after the pronouncement of the judgment of the court below on the grounds that, in full view of the various sentencing conditions indicated in the record, it cannot be deemed that the sentence of the court below exceeded the reasonable scope of discretion because it was excessively unreasonable. Thus, the above assertion by the Defendants is without merit.

3. If so, the Defendants’ appeal is without merit, and thus, it is in accordance with Article 364(4) of the Criminal Procedure Act.