The judgment below

The part against Defendant A and E and the guilty part against Defendant D shall be reversed respectively.

Defendant

A.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Defendant A and B (1) misunderstanding of facts does not constitute a violation of the Punishment of Violences, etc. Act (a collective weapon, bodily injury, etc.) and a violation of the Punishment of Violences, etc. Act (a collective weapon, etc.) among the facts charged in the instant case.

Nevertheless, the court below found the above charges guilty on the grounds of the testimony of BT without credibility.

The court below erred by misunderstanding facts and affecting the conclusion of the judgment.

(2) Each sentence of the lower court on unreasonable sentencing (Defendant A: two years of imprisonment and fine of 500,000 won; three years of suspended execution; one year and six months of imprisonment; two years of suspended execution) is too unreasonable.

B. Defendant D, E (1) misunderstanding of facts or misunderstanding of legal principles, the contents posted in the BN of this case are not false facts, but did not aim to defame the Defendants.

Nevertheless, the court below erred by misapprehending the facts or by misapprehending the legal principles, thereby finding the Defendants guilty.

(2) Each sentence of the lower court on unreasonable sentencing (Defendant D: a fine of KRW 1.5 million, Defendant E: a fine of KRW 1.5 million) is too unreasonable.

C. It is reasonable to view that the assembly on April 10, 2010, in which the public prosecutor (1) misjudgments the facts or misapprehension of legal principles (the violation of the Assembly and Demonstration Act against Defendant D, and Defendant F), Defendant D and F participated in the demonstration together with Defendant D and F, has caused a direct danger to public peace and order.

Nevertheless, the lower court erred by misapprehending the facts or by misapprehending the legal doctrine, thereby acquitted this part of the facts charged.

(2) The lower court’s sentence of unreasonable sentencing (with respect to Defendant D) is too unjustifiable.

2. Determination

A. We consistently state that: (a) Defendant A and B’s assertion of misunderstanding of facts was examined; (b) from the investigative agency to the court below’s court; and (c) around January 31, 2009, around 22:30 on January 31, 2009, the Defendants conspired with other participants of the demonstration in Q, R, S, T, U, and V with the victim Q, R, T, and BT.