The judgment of the first instance shall be reversed.

The defendant is innocent. The summary of this judgment shall be notified publicly.

1. The judgment of the court on the erroneous determination of the gist of the grounds for appeal (the assembly of this case was organized by C as the chairperson, and the tenant federation which the defendant or the defendant is jointly in charge of the intent of the assembly of this case is not the organizer of the assembly of this case, and at the time, the defendant did not have a new wall to G) and unfair sentencing. 2. The judgment of the court of this case

A. According to Article 2 subparag. 3 of the Assembly and Demonstration Act, the organizer refers to a person or organization holding or holding an assembly or demonstration under his/her own responsibility under Article 6(1) of the same Act, and the organizer of an assembly or demonstration for which prior notification is required pursuant to Article 6(1) of the same Act refers to “the person holding or leading an assembly or demonstration, or planning, organizing, and moving to practice an assembly or demonstration.” The organizer of an assembly or demonstration for which prior notification is required refers to “the person who has planned, organized, and moved to practice an assembly or demonstration.” A person who has conspired to hold an assembly or demonstration through functional control and control by the intent of joint processing and the intent to jointly participate in the event that he/she does not directly participate in the specific implementation, he/she cannot be exempted from the liability of joint principal offense

(see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2009Do2821, Sept. 29, 2011). B.

The organizer of the assembly of this case consistently conflicts with the purport that the defendant, from the investigative agency to the court of the trial, is not the D Commercial Rental Association established by the defendant or the defendant as the president, but the creditor federation with C as the president. In this case, it is difficult to see that the defendant can be seen as the organizer of the assembly of this case or the joint principal offender, and in light of the evidence examination results (C, N, E testimony, etc.), some statements, etc. made at the investigation agency of C and E, etc. are hard to be seen as the result of the examination of evidence (C, N, and E testimony, etc.). In addition, each statement made at the investigative agency of I, J, K, etc., each investigation report, newspaper article, summary order, etc.