The judgment below

Of them, the part on Defendant B shall be reversed.

Defendant

The pronouncement of sentence against B shall be suspended.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Although Defendant A's act constitutes a legitimate act, the judgment of the court below which convicted Defendant A, was erroneous in the misapprehension of legal principles.

B. Defendant B (i.e., misunderstanding of facts and misunderstanding of legal principles are not erroneous in matters of law or misunderstanding of legal principles, even though Defendant B only took the left side of H in order to commemorate Defendant A and the victim H, and there was no assault or assault, and even if there was no assault or assault, this is an act contrary to the social rules, and thus, it is not in violation of the social rules. Nevertheless, the judgment of the court below which convicted Defendant B of violation of law or misunderstanding of legal principles.

B. The sentence (one million won of fine) imposed by the court below on Defendant B is too unreasonable.

C. The prosecutor (not guilty portion of the defendant C) did not agree with the defendant C to receive a return of the delegation resolution as stated in the judgment of the court below while exercising coercive force against the intention of H, and even if the defendant C did not agree to receive a return of the delegation resolution of the court below, considering that the physical collision between the defendant C, A, and H had already occurred prior to the clerical error in the elevator prior to the place where the crime was committed by the defendant C, which is the place where the defendant C committed the crime, and therefore, the physical collision between the defendant C, A, and B had already occurred, the judgment of the court below which acquitted the defendant C.

2. Determination

A. We affirm the lower court’s assertion of the misapprehension of the legal doctrine as to Defendant A’s assertion of the following facts and circumstances acknowledged based on the evidence duly adopted and examined and the evidence, namely, Defendant A’s demand to return a written resolution to the victim H, the chairman of the committee, before the meeting of the union members was held, among the disputes surrounding the redevelopment improvement project in

Even if there are no other legitimate procedures and measures, H’s ebbbage can be towed as stated in the judgment below.