All appeals are dismissed.

Of the application of the law of the first instance judgment, the facts constituting the defendant J.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

1. As to Defendant A’s ground of appeal

A. Examining the reasoning of the judgment below in light of the evidence duly admitted by the court below, the court below is just in finding Defendant A guilty of violating the Punishment of Violences, etc. Act (collectively, deadly weapons, etc., non-compliance with the duty), obstruction of business, and violation of trust. Contrary to the allegations in the grounds of appeal, the court below did not err by exceeding the bounds of the principle of free evaluation of evidence against logical and empirical rules.

B. In this case where a sentence of imprisonment with prison labor for less than 10 years against Defendant A was imposed, the argument that the lower court’s sentencing was unfair or did not properly examine various circumstances that constitute sentencing conditions cannot be a legitimate ground for appeal.

2. Examining the reasoning of the lower judgment in light of the evidence duly admitted by the lower court as to Defendant G and Q’s grounds of appeal, the lower court’s rejection of Defendant G and Q’s allegation of denial of participation in the crime and its conviction on this part of the facts charged is justifiable, and contrary to what is alleged in the grounds of appeal, the lower court did not err by exceeding the bounds of the principle of free evaluation

3. Examining the reasoning of the lower judgment as to the grounds of appeal by Defendant J, L, M, and P in light of the evidence duly admitted by the lower court, the lower court’s rejection of the Defendants’ assertion of participation in the crime, political party act, self-defense, and emergency evacuation, etc. on the grounds of the circumstances indicated in its reasoning, and it is justifiable to find the Defendants guilty of this part of the facts charged. In so doing, contrary to what is alleged in the grounds of appeal, the lower court did not err by exceeding

4. As to Defendant N’s ground of appeal