An assembly subject to guarantee and regulation under the Act on Assembly and Demonstration refers to an assembly “temporary gathering at a certain place under the purpose of externally expressing an opinion by a specific or unspecified number of people by forming a common opinion.”

(See Supreme Court Decision 2010Do11381 Decided May 24, 2012, etc.). The lower court, on the grounds indicated in its reasoning, determined that it was reasonable to view that the Defendant’s assembly was an assembly as part of a collective expression of intent with F and H common objectives, and that it constitutes an assembly subject to reporting under the Assembly and Demonstration Act, and rejected the allegation in the grounds of appeal as to mistake of facts or misapprehension of legal doctrine disputing this.

The judgment below

Examining the reasoning in light of the aforementioned legal principles and evidence duly admitted, the lower court did not err in its judgment by misapprehending the legal doctrine regarding assembly and demonstration in violation of the Assembly and Demonstration Act, or by exceeding the bounds of the principle of free evaluation of evidence.

Therefore, the appeal is dismissed. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.