Before that meeting, some of the scientists have been "used" by various politicians and high-level civil servant in their public speeches and interviews with the media. There are records of the director of the nation-wide emergency task-force being being interviewed and saying things like "After these afternoon quakes there is nothing to be feared, I can assure you. My fellow colleague and quake researcher can tell you the same", and one of the convicted scientists cues in "Sure, there is nothing to be feared. Indeed, these small earthquakes have released a lot of energy, making a big earthquake impossible". _Impossible_. That is not correct scientific communication, that is being the wingman of a politician being interviewed by national TV.
The same board of scientists have been found legally responsible for other similar statements, for example for not green-lighting the evacuation of the student's campus. The engineering students noticed strange cracks on the walls and notified the emergency task-force who replied: "First, the building is safe, we have had it tested few month ago; second, they said on TV that there are not going to be big earthquakes". The main building of campus collapsed.
The government imposed a "everything is safe, do not worry" view. This was a political decision and the board members let the politicians use their scientific credibility for their political agenda. This is what is being punished here. It is their behaviour and the words they said on TV that is being addressed, not the content of the technical minutes.
Anyway, there is a point of the sentence that is a bit scary. The whole board is being punished, not just the head of the board and the others who spoke before the meeting. The court considers the board a single body, and this is a bit strange and worrisome.