The judgment below

Defendant A, B, E, F, H, I, J, K, L, and M are all reversed.

Defendant

A. Imprisonment.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. misunderstanding of facts or misapprehension of legal principles 1) Defendant A with respect to each criminal fact described in Article 2-2-1, 12, 19, and 20 of the original judgment, each assembly at the time does not have a duty to report, or is a legitimate act that does not violate social rules, or that the organizer did not have a possibility of expectation for reporting the assembly.

② With respect to the facts constituting an offense described in Article 11(a) of the original judgment, the Defendant did not give an instruction to the effect that “if the installation of a structure is hindered, it shall not cause any physical collision.” The Defendant’s act does not constitute a interference with the performance of official duties by police officers at the time.

③ With respect to the facts constituting the offense described in Article 11-2(b) of the original judgment, the Defendant’s act at the time constituted an resistance against the unlawful exercise of public authority, which constitutes a legitimate act or a legitimate defense.

④ With respect to the facts constituting the crime described in Article 14-2(b) of the original judgment, an assembly in the field is conducted after the assembly was completed on the same day, and it is difficult to view it as a deviation from the reported scope, and there was no obligation to report as an contingent assembly and there was no illegality.

(5) With respect to the facts constituting a crime set forth in Article 15 of the original judgment, the defendant does not have any conspiracy or direction to interfere with business.

2) As to the facts constituting the crime stated in paragraph (3) of the lower judgment, Defendant did not take part in the act of injury, assault, obstruction of business, etc.

3) With respect to the facts constituting the crime listed in paragraph 9 of the judgment below in Defendant Qua decision, the Defendant was unable to expect the result of the injury, and there was no intention to commit the crime of damage.

4) With respect to the facts constituting the crime set forth in paragraph 17 of the judgment of the court below, Defendant B did not give an instruction that “physical collision is unsatisfy,” and at the time police officers’ performance of official duties does not constitute a interference with the performance of official duties.

(2) Paragraph (18) of the original judgment.