All appeals by the Defendants are dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Defendant F, G, H, M, N, andO did not intrude into a structure managed by the victim R, etc., in collaboration with the remaining Defendants.

B. Even if Defendant B, I, J, and L jointly destroyed the entrance door of Q church education center, the above entrance door belongs to the ownership of Q church and the above church allowed the damage of Q church, so the above Defendants’ act cannot be punished as a crime of destruction.

(c)

Each sentence of the lower court against the illegal Defendants (Defendant B, I, J, L: KRW 1 million of each fine; KRW 700,000 of each fine; KRW 700,00 of each fine; Defendant C, D, E, F, G, K, N, andO: KRW 50,00 of each fine) is too unreasonable.

2. According to the evidence duly adopted and examined by the lower court regarding the assertion of mistake of facts, the lower court recognized that Defendant F, G, H, M, N, andO invadedd with the education center through the self-resolution on December 18, 2015 from the preceding day of the instant case, and on the day of the instant case, it can be recognized that the victims easily committed the act of other accomplices who intruded with the education center by preventing the victims from entering the education center, such as preventing them from entering the education center. Accordingly, according to the above facts acknowledged, the said Defendants’ act constitutes a case where the said Defendants committed a crime by recognizing another person’s crime in the same opportunity at the same place and using it. Thus, the said Defendants also constituted a crime of violating the Punishment of Violences, etc. Act (joint residence intrusion).

The Defendants’ assertion on this part is without merit.

3. According to the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court below on the assertion of misunderstanding of the legal principles, the court below can recognize the facts that Defendant B, I, J and L jointly agreed with each other and damaged the entrance of the above church without the prior consent of Q church. Thus, the Defendants’ assertion on this part is without merit.

4. Improper argument on sentencing.