A. Inasmuch as an assembly organized by a misunderstanding of facts and legal principles (hereinafter “instant assembly”) is not anticipated to conflict with the legal interests of the general public or undermine public safety and order in light of its time, place, means and method, etc., an assembly organized by the Defendant is not an outdoor assembly subject to punishment under the Assembly and Demonstration Act (hereinafter “the Assembly and Demonstration Act”).

However, the court below found the defendant guilty of the facts charged in this case. The court below erred by misunderstanding the facts or misunderstanding the legal principles on outdoor assemblies under the House Act.

B. The sentence of the lower court’s improper sentencing (an amount of KRW 500,000) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. As to the assertion of misunderstanding of facts and legal principles, the Defendant argued that the assembly of this case constitutes a justifiable act and thus the illegality is dismissed.

As to this, the court below held that the defendant's place of convening the meeting of this case is a place where the general public can freely communicate, and thus it is likely to conflict with the legal interests of a third party or undermine public safety and order by having contact with the outside of the general public, etc.

Inasmuch as the instant assembly is recognized, it constitutes an outdoor assembly subject to prior reporting pursuant to Article 6(1) of the Assembly and Demonstration Act, and it cannot be deemed that the Defendant’s act of holding the instant assembly was a justifiable act that does not go against social norms, the Defendant’s above assertion was rejected and the Defendant guilty of the facts charged in the instant case.

Examining the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court below, the above judgment of the court below is just and acceptable, and there is no error of misunderstanding of facts or misunderstanding of legal principles as alleged by the defendant.

B. As to the unfair argument of sentencing, the sentencing is based on the statutory penalty.