Nevertheless, the judgment of the court below which acquitted the charged facts of this case on the ground that the above provision becomes retroactively null and void is erroneous in the misapprehension of legal principle.

2. Determination

A. The Constitutional Court rendered a ruling of inconsistency with the Constitution to the effect that Article 11 subparag. 1 of the Assembly and Demonstration Act, which constitutes the applicable provisions of the Act on Assembly and Demonstration (hereinafter “the Assembly and Demonstration Act”), and Article 11 subparag. 1 of Article 23 of the Assembly and Demonstration Act, are inconsistent with the Constitution.

[The Constitutional Court Decision 2013Hun-Ba322, 2016Hun-Ba354 (merged) Decided May 31, 2018 (hereinafter “Unconformity with the Constitution of this case”)] B.

The Constitutional Court’s ruling of inconsistency with the legal doctrine is a modified form that is not prescribed by the Constitution and the Constitutional Court Act, but constitutes a ruling of unconstitutionality as to legal provisions. Article 23 subparag. 3 of the Assembly and Demonstration Act provides that participants at assembly violate Article 11 of the Assembly and Demonstration Act. Article 11 of the Assembly and Demonstration Act is combined with Article 23 subparag. 3 of the Assembly and Demonstration Act, and thus, Article 11 of the Assembly and Demonstration Act, which is declared as a decision of unconstitutionality as to the above provisions of the Assembly and Demonstration Act (hereinafter “instant legal provisions”), is a decision of inconsistency

However, the main sentence of Article 47 (3) of the Constitutional Court Act is the decision of unconstitutionality on the provision of the Punishment Act.