All parts of the judgment below against Defendant A and G shall be reversed.

Defendant

A The defendant shall be subject to a fine of one million won.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. As to the insult of Defendant A, Defendant A did not have the intent to insult the victim E, and even though Defendant A’s act was a legitimate act, the lower court erred by misapprehending the legal doctrine or misapprehending the legal doctrine that found Defendant A guilty of all the facts charged.

B. As to Defendant G’s obstruction of worship, there was no intention to obstruct towing, and Defendant G’s act was a legitimate act, but the lower court erred by misapprehending the legal doctrine or misapprehending the legal doctrine that found Defendant G guilty of all charges charged.

(c)

Even if the defendant A and G was guilty, the lower court's punishment against the defendant A and G is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. Before determining ex officio the grounds for appeal by Defendant A and G, this court decided to hold a concurrent trial by examining each appeal case against the judgment below. All of the offenses committed by the judgment below as guilty against Defendant A and G are concurrent offenses under the former part of Article 37 of the Criminal Act, and a single sentence shall be imposed within the scope of the term of punishment imposed for aggravated concurrent offenses in accordance with Article 38(1) of the Criminal Act.

Therefore, from this point of view, the parts of the judgment of the court below against Defendant A and G can no longer be maintained.

B. However, the assertion of misunderstanding of facts or misapprehension of the legal doctrine is still subject to the judgment of the court of this case as to the mistake of facts or misapprehension of the legal principle as to Defendant A’s insult and obstruction of worship by Defendant G’s worship.

The court below acknowledged the following circumstances based on the evidence duly adopted and investigated by the court below, that is, the defendants put a banner in order to inform of the unfair conduct of E, which is a pastor of the D church, and to correct it, or take a photograph of the members of the church, as stated in the judgment of the court below. However, the defendants asserted that the defendants put the banner in order to correct it.