All appeals by the Defendants and the Prosecutor are dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. The Defendant A, as a negotiating member, entered into a R building to kill the second negotiation with H, and there is no way to prevent entry in the process.

There is no intention to intrude the residence of the accused.

2) Defendant C entered to use a toilet for the head office open to H head office and deliver the living water to its members, and such act cannot be deemed as contrary to the intention of the manager, and ultimately there is no intention to intrude upon the dwelling of the Defendant.

B. As to each sentence of the first instance judgment (defendant A, C, Defendant B, and Defendant B’s fine of KRW 4 million), the summary of the grounds for appeal by the Defendants is so excessive that punishment is unreasonable, and the gist of the grounds for appeal by the Prosecutor is so excessive that punishment is too uneasible and unfair. The gist of the grounds for appeal by the Prosecutor is so excessive that punishment is unfair.

2. Determination:

A. According to the evidence duly adopted and examined by the first instance court on the assertion of misunderstanding of facts or misapprehension of legal principles (defendant A and C1), the defendant occupied the H head office and created relief together with other union members (Evidence No. 1 and No. 83 pages of evidence record), and infringed on a structure for the purpose of farming as described in the facts charged.

It is reasonable to see that the Defendant’s assertion that he was in company with a view to sexual intercourse is not accepted.

2) According to the evidence duly adopted and examined by the first instance court, Defendant C’s part of the instant case (in particular, evidence pictures and F Nompoph Ham Ham Hamop Ham Hamop P), it is recognized that the Defendant occupied the Defendant’s headquarters into the H headquarters with other union members by not simply using cremation in the situation where the Defendant was surrounded by the military force, etc. during which he was performing his duty to maintain order at the H headquarters’s expense, but also holding a debate with the F Nompung S.

Therefore, the defendant's objection.