1. As to Defendant A and B, the part of the judgment of the court below against the above Defendants is reversed.

Defendant

A.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. misunderstanding of facts or misunderstanding of legal principles as to the obstruction of the performance of official duties on August 26, 2014, Defendant B, C, and D (misunderstanding of facts as to the part concerning the crime of insult and misunderstanding of legal principles as to the obstruction of the performance of official duties on August 26, 2014, Defendant C did not have conspired by misunderstanding, or by actively participating in the above situation at the time. ② In relation to the obstruction of the performance of official duties on August 27, 2014, the Defendants acknowledged the fact that the Defendants deducted the victim’s assistant liability, but there was not the fact that the Defendants deducted the computers used by the victim, but those who less the victim’s chaired the victim was Defendant B, not Defendant A. ③ The attachment of the result of the survey on the victim’s insult is a matter of defamation, and it does not constitute a crime of insult. Nevertheless, the lower court erred by misapprehending the legal principles that found Defendant B, C, and D as co-principal of the crime of obstruction of the performance of official duties on the victim’s.

B. Unfair sentencing 1) Each sentence of the lower court against the Defendants (two years of suspended sentence in the imprisonment of August, 200; one year of suspended sentence in the imprisonment of June; three million won in the imprisonment of Defendant C; and five million won in the fine of Defendant D) is too unreasonable. 2) Each sentence of the lower court against the Defendants is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. Defendant B, C, D, and their defense counsel, respectively, shall be mistaken for facts and misapprehension of legal principles.